• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Casey Anthony Trial: Jury Reaches Verdict

dontworrybehappy said:
Which is the most absurd law that will ever be written.

How the hell do you enforce it? What if they are in the care of someone else, a babysitter, grandparents, a nanny? What if you're on a 2 week vacation and the child goes missing during that time frame? What if they go missing while at a sleepover? What if they go missing at a summer camp? Are the parents held liable, the summer camp people? It's ridiculous.

I mean what time frame will you put before it becomes a crime, and how will you PROVE that the parents knew the child was missing at all and didn't think they were "at Bobbys house" or anywhere else, for that matter?

It's a stupid, "feel good" law that is completely unenforceable unless the time frame stated is stated in months.
Click to expand...
In Casey's case, the minute she told her mother that the "babysitter" had her kid is the minute she would be accused of not reporting a missing child. The law is pretty enforceable as people tend to ask questions when they don't see children after while that parents/guardians have to answer at a certain point with a lie or the truth.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Which is the most absurd law that will ever be written.

How the hell do you enforce it? What if they are in the care of someone else, a babysitter, grandparents, a nanny? What if you're on a 2 week vacation and the child goes missing during that time frame? What if they go missing while at a sleepover? What if they go missing at a summer camp? Are the parents held liable, the summer camp people? It's ridiculous.

I mean what time frame will you put before it becomes a crime, and how will you PROVE that the parents knew the child was missing at all and didn't think they were "at Bobbys house" or anywhere else, for that matter?

It's a stupid, "feel good" law that is completely unenforceable unless the time frame stated is stated in months.
Click to expand...

If they are with someone with parents consent they are not missing. You argument makes no sense
 
theplaydrive said:
In Casey's case, the minute she told her mother that the "babysitter" had her kid is the minute she would be accused of not reporting a missing child. The law is pretty enforceable as people tend to ask questions when they don't see children after while that parents/guardians have to answer at a certain point with a lie or the truth.
Click to expand...

The problem is Casy can not show where Kaylee went or produce the babysitter.
 
ptif219 said:
So then we should not have confessions admitted to courts either?
Click to expand...

Confessions are given voluntarily. Everyone is allowed to waive their 5th Amend rights.

IMO, it is unwise to try to refute a claim of ignorance by posting something that ignores a persons' right to waive their rights.
 
sangha said:
Confessions are given voluntarily. Everyone is allowed to waive their 5th Amend rights.

IMO, it is unwise to try to refute a claim of ignorance by posting something that ignores a persons' right to waive their rights.
Click to expand...

So the life of child is not important let the criminal kill them. The law is to protect the innocent. If it is illegal why are so many states seeking it?
 
ptif219 said:
So the life of child is not important let the criminal kill them. The law is to protect the innocent. If it is illegal why are so many states seeking it?
Click to expand...

Everyone is innocent until convicted in a court of law.
 
ptif219 said:
No it doesn't. To increment does not mean you are innocent
Click to expand...

How does a person "increment"?

on edit: I see that you meant to say "incriminate". The Supreme Court has said that even the innocent can incriminate themselve (see "The Innocence Project") and so therefore, even the innocent have a right to refuse to testify against themselves. (Ohio v. Reiner)
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
That is correct. So the law will protect the innocent. Laws are not made to protect criminals
Click to expand...

you clearly don't know very much about the law.

the law protects all people occupying the United States of America. Innocent people, guilty people, criminals, saints, legal & illegal immigrants.

your comments lack any reason, logic, or substance.
 
Thunder said:
you clearly don't know very much about the law.

the law protects all people occupying the United States of America. Innocent people, guilty people, criminals, saints, legal & illegal immigrants.

your comments lack any reason, logic, or substance.
Click to expand...

Yes, the law also protects the rights of the guilty. Even convicted prisoners have rights.
 
Gladiator said:
There is considerable evidence that Caylee's death was an accident, and also evidence that Caylee drowned in the Anthony backyard pool. How did the scent of human decomposition get into the Anthpny back yard, discovered by two cadaver dogs in July of 2009? Why did George confide to River Cruise that Caylee's disapearance was an accident? Why did a noted Medical Examiner find that the duct tape had been placed on Caylee's mouth, after she was dead? Was someone trying to cover up the accident, and make Caylee's disappearance appear to be a child abduction?



//
Click to expand...

what evidence?
 
liblady said:
what evidence?
Click to expand...

The evidence is mentioned in the post you replied to. To wit:

did the scent of human decomposition get into the Anthpny back yard, discovered by two cadaver dogs in July of 2009? Why did George confide to River Cruise that Caylee's disapearance was an accident? Why did a noted Medical Examiner find that the duct tape had been placed on Caylee's mouth, after she was dead?
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
The evidence is mentioned in the post you replied to. To wit:
Click to expand...

you mean the defense team's noted medical examiner? lol. "river" cruz? again, lol. perhaps she just wanted to be seen on the stand. after all, her testimony was contradictory, right? she says george said he threw casey against the wall and demanded to know what happened......and then she says that george told her it was an accident that went out of control. well, if he helped casey dispose of caylee.....as casey's defense said, why would he throw her up against a wall and demand to know what had happened?

silly. casey anothony killed her daughter.
 
disneydude said:
Actually I would think it would be an aggravating factor. If you had aggravated child abuse and also neglect, I think a case could be made that not only is the person a bad mother (Neglect), they also engaged in criminal conduct (ACA).....to me, I would think a judge would consider the neglect to be aggravating, unless it rose to the level of a mental defense, i.e., the mother had severe psychological problems that was a factor to both the aca and the neglect.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right. Whew, man was this family screwed up....

j-mac
 
liblady said:
you mean the defense team's noted medical examiner? lol. "river" cruz? again, lol. perhaps she just wanted to be seen on the stand. after all, her testimony was contradictory, right? she says george said he threw casey against the wall and demanded to know what happened......and then she says that george told her it was an accident that went out of control. well, if he helped casey dispose of caylee.....as casey's defense said, why would he throw her up against a wall and demand to know what had happened?

silly. casey anothony killed her daughter.
Click to expand...

You are under no obligation to believe the evidence, but evidence it is.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, you're probably right. Whew, man was this family screwed up....

j-mac
Click to expand...

The prosecutors could not argue neglect for failing to report her child missing because that would have put the prosecution in the position of arguing that it might have been an accident, thereby raising a reasonable doubt.
 
Thunder said:
you clearly don't know very much about the law.

the law protects all people occupying the United States of America. Innocent people, guilty people, criminals, saints, legal & illegal immigrants.

your comments lack any reason, logic, or substance.
Click to expand...

Your logic make no sense. Explain if it is illegal why so many states are seeking it?
 
sangha said:
politicians have no scruples.they have passed hundreds of unconstitutional bills
Click to expand...

Nice try but I doubt you are right.

You are more concerned with protecting criminals than innocent children
 
ptif219 said:
Nice try but I doubt you are right.

You are more concerned with protecting criminals than innocent children
Click to expand...

So you doubt that laws have been passed and then overturned by SCOTUS for being unconstitutional?

129034625324655300.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom