I haven’t posted anything about it here because I have zero interest in overhyped media-circus trials where everyone in America gets to pretend they’re on the jury and pronounce the defendant OBVIOUSLY guilty, then act morally outraged when the actual jury that HASN’T been watching all the OTT heart-rending emo coverage of the trial comes to a different conclusion.
Granted, that’s partly because, living in Hong Kong as I do, I was spared the play-by-play of the Casey Anthony trial. The only reason I knew about it at all was by seeing Anthony’s name and photo on the cover of every US/UK trashy tabloid magazine on the rack here (which right there was a sign that it was something I didn’t really need to know about). But then I didn’t follow the OJ trial when I lived in the states, either, so I can safely say location isn’t really a factor.
Anyway, the fallout over the verdict has been as sadly predictable as the hype over the case itself (honestly, you’d think no parent in America has ever been accused of murdering their own toddler before – where’s THEIR media circus?). And that includes the emo legislation being proposed at the federal (and failing that, state) level that would “fix” the problem – in this case, Casey Anthony not going to jail forever.
The proposed law (it’s called
Caylee’s Law – see what they did there?) would allow police to charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. Which wouldn’t prevent parents from murdering their kids and covering it up for a month, but it would give prosecutors a way to convict suspects (like Casey Anthony) without having to prove they ever killed anyone. It’s kind of like putting Al Capone away for tax evasion rather than being the biggest gangster in Chicago.
Anyway, like most posthumous vengeance laws named after victims, it's a dumb and bad law that solves nothing apart from making politicians and their constituents feel as though they’ve Done Something about an obvious injustice (because what's the point of an impartial jury if they don’t base their decision on popular opinion?), and is more likely to make felons out of otherwise innocent people than actually prevent suspected child-murderers from going free.
(Never mind that Anthony actually was convicted already on lesser charges and has served jail time for them.)
Luckily, I need not go on about it. You can read some arguments against Caylee’s Law (and similar laws)
here,
here and
here. They’re good arguments, and save me a lot of typing.
Not that it will matter. Caylee’s Law will probably pass at the state level for the same reason similar laws almost always do – it’s not about logic or consequences, it’s about anger and indignant outrage. That’s how things get
done in America.
Especially
nowadays.
Shoot first and ask questions later,
This is dF