GOP goon displeased with outcome of Casey Anthony case, advocates Police State

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-plans-introduce-caylees-law-064155287.html

Fun excerpts:


An Oklahoma lawmaker said on Wednesday he planned to introduce a "Caylee's law" in his state requiring parents to swiftly report the death or disappearance of a child in the first legislation stemming from the death of the Florida toddler.


"Any delay could endanger the life of the child and, in the case of a child's death, make it that much harder to collect evidence. I think the actions of Caylee's mother were reprehensible," he added, saying most people he met felt that Casey Anthony "escaped true justice".


Wesselhoft said it was a problem that there were no laws regulating the timely reporting of a child's death or disappearance, and that the law should give a parent 24 hours to report the death of a child and 48 hours to report a child under age 12 as missing.

"Violation of this law would be a maximum misdemeanor or a felony conviction. Oklahomans do not want to experience a situation such as what occurred in the Caylee Anthony case," said Wesselhoft, a Republican.

I don't want to not report my dead or missing child or live under the threat of Sharia, so I need the Oklahoma government to pass these laws.

[A Son of Liberty]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_K_3jgRj_Rj4/TEKfgjuxhkI/AAAAAAAAC9E/r7GO-UQmgGI/s400/fiddling-while-rome-burns.jpg

[AbVag]

The media sets them up, the government knocks them down. Corporatism at its finest.

[VBRonPaulFan]

the prosecution boggled the fucking case. we don't need more bullshit laws because those wouldn't have friggin' helped here.

[osan]

the prosecution boggled the fucking case. we don't need more bullshit laws because those wouldn't have friggin' helped here.

True, but that really is not the point, eh?

[Noob]

The way I have seen some people say that she should never be allowed to have another kid makes me think they well use the anger that people have for her, along with Octomom as propaganda for America to adopt China's One-Child Policy...

[specsaregood]

//

[brushfire]

Yup.. There's a law for that too...

Its apparently the intention of our law makers to put heaven out of business... So far they are about to put hell out of business.

[sailingaway]

Goons abound. The GOP does not have a corner on the market, I'm pretty sure....

[Guitarzan]

I heard another guy on Hannity last night advocating for "professional juries", because, of course, most average Joe's are not intelligent enough to understand what they're doing, and it's too easy to taint them with bribes and such. :rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

//

[Guitarzan]

I think a pretty good debate can be made for professional juries. I think it is an idea worth debating.
ie: I'm not particularly fond of having a jury made up of people that spend their days watching judge judy and judge mathis reruns. I'd rather have one made up of people whos job is to remain unbiased and watching real trials.


I've never researched the idea. It sounds statist to me. How would it be done? I'm assuming these would be public employees? I would think they would be more biased against a defendant, as they would be "taught" to understand the law "properly" (from the State's perspective I'm sure).

[idirtify]

I heard another guy on Hannity last night advocating for "professional juries", because, of course, most average Joe's are not intelligent enough to understand what they're doing, and it's too easy to taint them with bribes and such. :rolleyes:

OMG. What are “professional juries”; “state-approved juries”, “well-paid juries”, or “fully informed juries”?

[idirtify]

I've never researched the idea. It sounds statist to me. How would it be done? I'm assuming these would be public employees? I would think they would be more biased against a defendant, as they would be "taught" to understand the law "properly" (from the State's perspective I'm sure).

OK. Never mind my previous questions.

[affa]

I heard another guy on Hannity last night advocating for "professional juries", because, of course, most average Joe's are not intelligent enough to understand what they're doing, and it's too easy to taint them with bribes and such. :rolleyes:

that's one of the scarier ideas that i've read in a long time.

[tropicangela]

This petition is going around:

http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

PETITIONING
The President of the United States
The U.S. Senate
The U.S. House of Representatives

OVERVIEW
Caylee's Law, contact your Senator and Representative: there should be a new federal law created called Caylee's Law that will make it a federal offense for a parent or guardian to not notify law enforcement of a child going missing in a timely manner.
Let's keep another case like Caylee Anthony out of the courts.

:rolleyes:

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm just wondering why is it the state's business? I mean if my kid dies suddenly I just know that the very first thing I'll want to spend my attention on is notifying the state. I mean the rest of my family and friends can wait, the state must know first. Some religions require burial within 24hours, I guess we gotta get on the state notification quick then. Also, I wonder why it is 24 hours for death and 48hours for missing kid, i would think a missing kid should take higher priority than a dead kid.

It's already an unwritten "law". If someone dies and they are not in the hospital or in a situation where the authorities are in control (like an auto accident with Police and emergency personnel), you (family, custodian, etc) will be under suspicion, and you will be questioned. Even if it's your 95 yo relative who dies at home, you will be questioned, often in an accusatory tone. It's just a matter of time before it becomes codified, with penalties.

[specsaregood]

I've never researched the idea. It sounds statist to me. How would it be done? I'm assuming these would be public employees? I would think they would be more biased against a defendant, as they would be "taught" to understand the law "properly" (from the State's perspective I'm sure).

How would juries work in an an-cap society where you couldn't compell people show up? I would think you would have professional juries in such a society, no?

Maybe they would be biased against a defendent but what makes you think juries aren't already biased? I would imagine that a professional juror would be versed in court proceedings, elements of the law and their responsibility as jurors.

If a judge orders something stricken from the record or an argument sustained which do you think would be able to more completely remove that information from their decision process: the professional or the amateur?

You could even have professional jurors undergo frequent background checks and lie detector interrogations to verify their honesty, unbiasedness and if they have cheated/been paid off at all.

I understand the hesitancy to support the idea initially; but I think a case could be made for them. Or can you honestly say you want to put your future in the hands of the dregs that end up on juries nowadays? I'm not so sure I would.

[affa]

I think a pretty good debate can be made for professional juries. I think it is an idea worth debating.
ie: I'm not particularly fond of having a jury made up of people that spend their days watching judge judy and judge mathis reruns. I'd rather have one made up of people whos job is to remain unbiased and watching real trials.

What good debate? Get rid of the jury of your peers and replace it with people hand selected by the government? Maybe in fantasy land where they could (and would want to) find "unbiased" employees... but good luck with that, and even there, I'd still rather be tried by a jury of my peers. It's far more likely you'd end up with a group of people hand picked for their subservience to authority.

And that's not even getting into the intentional corruption that would likely occur over time. It's one thing vetting a jury pool of randomly selected people -- it's quite another when you actually get to take the time to -hire- people. You can vet them for months first, if you want - hand selecting certain mentalities. Over time you might see juries full of retired cops or, potentially, of a single political mind. People complain about the Supreme Court selections... imagine when you look at your jury and see not your peers, but people paid to 'dispense justice'.

And worse yet? Imagine being a juror, and knowing you might get fired if you don't make the selection you're 'supposed' to.

Gross.

[specsaregood]

And that's not even getting into the intentional corruption that would likely occur over time. Over time you'd see juries full of retired cops or, potentially, of a single political mind. People complain about the Supreme Court selections... imagine when you look at your jury and see not your peers, but people paid to 'dispense justice'.


Funny, when I look at juries now I see people either too stupid to get out of jury duty or unemployed layabouts with nothing better to do. I think they already do a good job of keeping "good people" from getting on juries. I know I'm always sent home. If I'm always sent home, then what are the chances of somebody like me "a peer" getting on my jury should I need one someday?

edit: And what makes you think it would just be lawandorder people that would want to be a professional juror? I'd think plenty of civil liberty minded people would go out for such a job as well. Maybe even more so.

[Guitarzan]

Funny, when I look at juries now I see people either too stupid to get out of jury duty or unemployed layabouts with nothing better to do. I think they already do a good job of keeping "good people" from getting on juries. I know I'm always sent home. If I'm always sent home, then what are the chances of somebody like me "a peer" getting on my jury should I need one someday?

edit: And what makes you think it would just be lawandorder people that would want to be a professional juror? I'd think plenty of civil liberty minded people would go out for such a job as well. Maybe even more so.

Still makes me nervous lol. I think the law and order people would overwhelm the civil liberty minded people just because they outnumber us in today's society. And yeah, "professional" juries would often be subtly threatened that if they make the wrong decision their job may be on the line. Now in an an-cap society I agree, but we're a long way from that. I'll think I'll take my chances with joe schmoe over the 'expert'.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If my daughter was missing for 5 hours I would call the police. This woman didn't report it for a month? She's innocent all right.

[specsaregood]

Still makes me nervous lol. I think the law and order people would overwhelm the civil liberty minded people just because they outnumber us in today's society. And yeah, "professional" juries would often be subtly threatened that if they make the wrong decision their job may be on the line. Now in an an-cap society I agree, but we're a long way from that. I'll think I'll take my chances with joe schmoe over the 'expert'.

Right, well I'm not advocating for anything other than that it is a debatable idea both with up and downsides. Of course one idea would be to give the defendent a choice of an amateur or professional jury.

What if the professional jury pool was run/maintained by a seperate non-govt non-profit organization?

[PaulConventionWV]

that's one of the scarier ideas that i've read in a long time.

That would be the day... when they take away jury nullification.

[specsaregood]

That would be the day... when they take away jury nullification.

You are of the opinion that they haven't already?

[PaulConventionWV]

Funny, when I look at juries now I see people either too stupid to get out of jury duty or unemployed layabouts with nothing better to do. I think they already do a good job of keeping "good people" from getting on juries. I know I'm always sent home. If I'm always sent home, then what are the chances of somebody like me "a peer" getting on my jury should I need one someday?

edit: And what makes you think it would just be lawandorder people that would want to be a professional juror? I'd think plenty of civil liberty minded people would go out for such a job as well. Maybe even more so.

I disagree with you, and I know for a fact that Ron Paul would disagree, as well. It's not the government's job to dispense justice. The "fear" of disorder or wrongdoing always makes people flee to government intervention. I almost thought people on this forum were above that nonsense. You, however, have no qualms about it when it comes to deciding whether or not somebody is guilty. It's just another brick in the wall that says the mundanes can't make rational decisions. Only "professionals" are allowed to decide. That would be a giant step toward fascism when we finally take away the jury of our peers.

[PaulConventionWV]

You are of the opinion that they haven't already?

So what, you want more statism? Yeah, that makes sense. Even if they have, I wouldn't advocate pushing it in the government's direction.

We still have the ability to use jury nullification, yes.

[specsaregood]

So what, you want more statism? Yeah, that makes sense. Even if they have, I wouldn't advocate pushing it in the government's direction.

I gave 2 other options.
#1 let the defendent choose amateur jury or professional jury. -- that is giving MORE choices.
#2 professional jury pool run by a non-govt non-profit agency.



We still have the ability to using jury nullification, yes.
I'm not so sure, when judges can/will/have remove you from the jury and replace you if they figure out that is what you are planning.

So I take it you are of the opinion that only lawAndOrder ex-cops type would seek this out as a profession? I disagree. I think a fair number of civil-liberty minded people might consider it as a career option. And you only need 1 on a jury to hang it.

[specsaregood]

So I take it you are of the opinion that only lawAndOrder ex-cops type would seek this out as a profession? I disagree. I think a fair number of civil-liberty minded people might consider it as a career option. And you only need 1 on a jury to hang it.


I've created a poll on that topic.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302203-Would-you-consider-being-a-professional-juror

I'm of the opinion that civil liberty minded people might pursue such a career.

[PaulConventionWV]

I gave 2 other options.
#1 let the defendent choose amateur jury or professional jury. -- that is giving MORE choices.
#2 professional jury pool run by a non-govt non-profit agency.


I'm not so sure, when judges can/will/have remove you from the jury and replace you if they figure out that is what you are planning.

So I take it you are of the opinion that only lawAndOrder ex-cops type would seek this out as a profession? I disagree. I think a fair number of civil-liberty minded people might consider it as a career option. And you only need 1 on a jury to hang it.

The Constitution calls for a jury of one's peers. Both of those options violate the Constitution and lead down the slippery slope to tyranny. Next, they'd be "demonstrating" how you "need" a professional jury and, once it became common knowledge, would eliminate the jury of one's peers altogether.

[specsaregood]

The Constitution calls for a jury of one's peers. Both of those options violate the Constitution and lead down the slippery slope to tyranny.

They don't violate anything; your comment assumes that the constitution would not be amended in order to provide these options. The constitution was created as such it could be changed overtime. It wouldn't violate the constitution if it was amended.

Your slippery slope argument is worth considering; which is why I said it was worthy of a debate. I think a professional jury might be more just in some cases, esp. where it deals with a lot of detailed information. contract law, ip, malpractice, money/taxes. Maybe even limiting professional juries to civil court cases, sort of like the mediation option.

[musicmax]

"Oklahomans do not want to experience a situation such as what occurred in the Caylee Anthony case."

Throwing Nancy Grace out of an airplane would accomplish this, among other benefits.

[AJ Antimony]

So if the government can force you to make a phone call, why can't it force you to do anything else, such as, say, buy health insurance?

Stupid Republican.

[PaulConventionWV]

They don't violate anything; your comment assumes that the constitution would not be amended in order to provide these options. The constitution was created as such it could be changed overtime. It wouldn't violate the constitution if it was amended.

Your slippery slope argument is worth considering; which is why I said it was worthy of a debate. I think a professional jury might be more just in some cases, esp. where it deals with a lot of detailed information. contract law, ip, malpractice, money/taxes. Maybe even limiting professional juries to civil court cases, sort of like the mediation option.

Well, that's what I'm saying. It's not easy to amend the Constitution. If any such amendment were proposed, I would oppose it.

The thing is, I happen to believe the jury of one's peers is based on sound principles. They even have examples of this same type of legal system in the Old Testament. You are right that the Constitution can be amended, but I'm hoping it would not pass.

[Anti Federalist]

I think a pretty good debate can be made for professional juries. I think it is an idea worth debating.
ie: I'm not particularly fond of having a jury made up of people that spend their days watching judge judy and judge mathis reruns. I'd rather have one made up of people whos job is to remain unbiased and watching real trials.

You already have "professional juries", at the federal level.

They have a 98 percent conviction rate.

Do you think 98 percent of people that go to trial in federal court are guilty?

[specsaregood]

You already have "professional juries", at the federal level.
They have a 98 percent conviction rate.
Do you think 98 percent of people that go to trial in federal court are guilty?

I was not aware of that. Can you explain or link me to more details?

[Brian4Liberty]

You already have "professional juries", at the federal level.

They have a 98 percent conviction rate.

Do you think 98 percent of people that go to trial in federal court are guilty?

Never heard that statistic, but it would make sense. A professional jury would be an employee of the system (essentially of the prosecution). Eventually, through constant exposure, influence and pressure, they would see the world through the prosecution's eyes.

[Anti Federalist]

You already have "professional juries", at the federal level.

They have a 98 percent conviction rate.

Do you think 98 percent of people that go to trial in federal court are guilty?


I was not aware of that. Can you explain or link me to more details?


Never heard that statistic, but it would make sense. A professional jury would be an employee of the system (essentially of the prosecution). Eventually, through constant exposure, influence and pressure, they would see the world through the prosecution's eyes.

OK men, you may burn me on this, because I'm blindly repeating a statistic cited by Alex Jones.

The idea is that the jury pools that the feds draw from for federal jury trials are so well "groomed" and "kept" that they return that conviction rate on a regular basis.

Give me a little time to research that statistic and we'll see what comes up.

[specsaregood]

Never heard that statistic, but it would make sense. A professional jury would be an employee of the system (essentially of the prosecution). Eventually, through constant exposure, influence and pressure, they would see the world through the prosecution's eyes.

Do you think that you could perhaps negate that if you designed a professional jury system?
Some ideas.

#1. Have the professional jury pool/employer run by a non-profit, non-government entity.
#2. Make the jury pool selection process completely anonymous.
2a. Neither the prosecution or defense can see the potential jurors (no age, gender, race, name)
2b. potential jurors could be selected or removed from the pool via statistics
--Convict/Hung/No Guilty record for juror is available
--How long they have been working
--How often they are selected for a jury pool
--Perhaps even breakdown the statistics based on the type of charge
2c. potential jurors are given selection questions by an independent entity while connected to a lie detector. answers and lie detector results are available to prosecution and defense for selection/removal decision

that's just a few ideas I might suggest if I was in charge of designing a just professional jury system.

[specsaregood]

The idea is that the jury pools that the feds draw from for federal jury trials are so well "groomed" and "kept" that they return that conviction rate on a regular basis.
Give me a little time to research that statistic and we'll see what comes up.

Ok, I could see that. But it indicates that there is already a problem with our non-professional amateur jury selection process.

[Anti Federalist]

Reading this report right now:

http://www.rasmusen.org/papers/overheads/prosecutors-overheads.pdf

I see your point though specs, idiots in the voting booth got us into this mess, idiots in the jury box helped.

[specsaregood]

Reading this report right now:
http://www.rasmusen.org/papers/overheads/prosecutors-overheads.pdf
I see your point though specs, idiots in the voting booth got us into this mess, idiots in the jury box helped.

Thanks, will give it a gander tonight.

As I mentioned somewhere else. Everytime I have shown up for jury selection I get sent him promptly. Which tells me there is a good chance I wouldn't ever get what I would consider a "peer". Add to that judges that remove amateur jurors that dare question the validity of a law or nullification and it indicates to me that we have a problem already. I'm not sold on the professional jury, but I think if you put some liberty minded people to the task of designing one they could end up with a pretty good design for one.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The way I have seen some people say that she should never be allowed to have another kid makes me think they well use the anger that people have for her, along with Octomom as propaganda for America to adopt China's One-Child Policy...

I was pilloried in a FB conversation with a friend after she suggested mandating forced sterilization for people on food stamps/welfare as an answer to our fiscal problems. I brought up the issue of payment for the facility, doctor, transportation, compliance costs, and bureaucratic costs to shoot down the cost benefit analysis, and countered with cutting our foreign policy to $250 billion a year, and ending the war on drugs. After several paragraphs of detailing those issues and plans, I mentioned that, rather than forcing sterilization for people on welfare (and the massive intrusion on one's life), ending food stamps and such would be less intrusive.

She screeched about how I had no solutions, and wanted to throw grandma out on the street.

In short, yeah, people will advocate for that sort of nonsense.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Meh

http://www.statesurge.com/members/paul-wesselhoft-oklahoma-210676


Paul Wesselhoft

Follow
Oklahoma State Rep, 54th District, Republican

http://www.statesurge.com/image/160/180/aHR0cDovL2ZpbGVzLnN0YXRlc3VyZ2UuY29tL2ZpbGUvOTMzMT Yw
Capitol Office
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Room 332
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Phone: 405-557-7343


paulwesselhoft@okhouse.gov



Latest Updates (http://www.statesurge.com/members/paul-wesselhoft-oklahoma-210676)
Profile (http://www.statesurge.com/members/paul-wesselhoft-oklahoma-210676/profile)
Contact Info (http://www.statesurge.com/members/paul-wesselhoft-oklahoma-210676/contact)
Sponsored Bills (http://www.statesurge.com/members/paul-wesselhoft-oklahoma-210676/sponsored-bills)
Committees (http://www.statesurge.com/members/paul-wesselhoft-oklahoma-210676/committees)
District Map (http://www.statesurge.com/members/paul-wesselhoft-oklahoma-210676/district-map)

http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill HR1037 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hr1037-oklahoma-570522)08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285200)



http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill HR1040 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hr1040-oklahoma-570525)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285201)
http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill HR1044 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hr1044-oklahoma-570529)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285202)
http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill HR1051 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hr1051-oklahoma-570536)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285203)
http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill HR1060 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hr1060-oklahoma-570545)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285204)
http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill HR1062 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hr1062-oklahoma-570547)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285205)
http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill SB662 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/sb662-oklahoma-571211)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285206)
http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill SCR11 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/scr11-oklahoma-571809)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285207)
http://www.statesurge.com/system/template/current/images/page.pngCo-Sponsored bill SCR14 (http://www.statesurge.com/bills/scr14-oklahoma-571812)
08/10/2009 (http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285208)

(http://www.statesurge.com/member-action/4285211)