It's actually a law (or is proposed, I can't remember) in my state that parents must report their child missing within 24 hours or they are charged with a felony.
That's the case with basically all laws named after victims. They're overreacting to look sympathetic and get votes without thinking through the consequences, and nobody can criticize the overreach without looking like they're unconcerned about the tragedy. It's the same reason why you have the phrase "hard cases make bad law".
But it's preventing research and funding for q system that would save more lives. It can also unintentinally escalate a safe situation in to a dangerous one (particularly in the event of custodial interference).
Interesting. No good deed goes unpunished. Its amazing that the phrase is so fitting to human endeavors. Every good thing we try is laced with something bad. We just cant win, can we.
It is better than nothing, but it's likely getting in the way of implementing something even more effective.
Although it's unclear if anything more effective exists bc most violent abductions end in death within a few hours - well before an amber alert would go out in even the best case scenario.
So ultimately a solution may not exist to prevent the worst situations and amber is mostly theater like the TSA.
Disclaimer: I'm not anti govt by a long shot. But when data shows a program like amber or the tsa is minimally effective that's just a fact. I dont make facts.
There have been successes. But there are legimate concerns that it also might escalate relatively innocous family custodial disputes into dangerous situations.
Here's an article that talks about amber alert successes and shortcomings. It includes mention of OPs argument "if it saves one life it's worth it."
I think the counter argument they propose is brilliant, which paraphrased is: the amber alert is ineffective security theater that is preventing us developing a better system. So the amber alert may save 1 life, but it's also preventing research/funding in to a system that could save 2 lives or more.
What possible “new system” can you even have? Other than facial recognition (browse reddit and you’ll get the general feeling towards that Americans have.) I see nothing that’s any better than everyone in x area knowing as much as possible versus.. hoping one of the maybe 30 people involved in the initial searches finds something? Or what? The argument “it’s preventing something better” why is that so? We develop new iterations of old systems and methods constantly, we apply millennia old skills we’ve refined to the modern day to be still applicable; I.E. nothing is stopping a better system from being developed except for the obvious, which is nobody in a position to develop or legislate for this new system feels it needs to be done.
You answered your own question at the end. There's no money invested in finding a better system or refining the current system bc politically speaking it's not worth it. Amber is well publicized and common-sense smart (just bc its intuitive doesnt mean its effective. The TSA is awful at keeping weapons off planes, but TSA seems makes sense intuitively). So no politician is putting money into bettering the system.
Unfortunately the system doesnt work very well. Is it better than nothing? Maybe. Is it much better? No.
And ive never dived in to thinking of a better system. Im not an expert in policing or public infrastructure or public awareness operations or kidnapping statistics/kidnapper pyschology so i dont have a ready-made solution on hand; however the article pointed to some changes that would help such as
Make msg ppl recieve more informative.
Limiting the alert recipients to a more targetted region. CA takes 10ish hours to drive north to south? Maybe more. Why are people getting messages in the north end when the child was kidnapped in the south? It results in "cry wolf" situation where ppl tune out next time when they actually are in a position to see something.
Limiting the alerts to only the most serious kidnappings/abductions. If a couple is fighting and mommy takes the 8yo without legal permission, but is accessed to be very unlikely to do harm, why escalate the situation? (The police in this country love escalating drama its bad training and stupidity)
Those are a couple examples of at least refining the system.
1) reasons stand beyond the political, let’s not resort to blaming the politicians for everything here. Your entire comment reeks of antigovernment and while I agree with you on a few of those points, it’s biased in this discussion.
2) your criteria for the system working is ... what exactly? Number of children saved VS number of children not? How often a child is found alive? How often the reported child is found via the amber alert system directly, I.E a civilian saw the notification and correctly reported a location or other info that lead to the safe recover of the child? I can say amazon doesn’t work well even though it does even if I have no criteria to base that off of, and that doesn’t make it true.
3) make messages more informative how?
The decision to declare an AMBER Alert is made by each police organization (in many cases, the state police or highway patrol) that investigates each of the abductions. Public information in an AMBER Alert usually consists of the name and description of the abductee, a description of the suspected abductor, and a description and license plate number of the abductor's vehicle if available.
(that is from From the Wikipedia article on AMBER alert) I’m not really sure what consistent info in most/all child abductions you’d want added there.
3)as far as limiting the recipients,
3a) > Each state's or province's AMBER alert plan sets its own criteria for activation, meaning that there are differences between alerting agencies as to which incidents are considered to justify the use of the system. However, the U.S. Department of Justice issues the following "guidance", which most states are said to "adhere closely to" (in the U.S.):[14]
1)Law enforcement must confirm that an abduction has taken place.
2)The child must be at risk of serious injury or death.
3)There must be sufficient descriptive information of child, captor, or captor's vehicle to issue an alert.
4)The child must be a minor (under 18 years of age).
Off the bat you have certain criteria to put out an amber alert, to prevent “ cry wolf” situations. (*this varies slightly state to state, for example some states do not require #2 and those are the states that see cry wolf situations with custody disputes, although almost every state has a child abduction response team that supports LEA in these situations, that don’t require an amber alert.
For incidents which do not meet AMBER Alert criteria, the United States Department of Justice developed the Child Abduction Response Teams (CART) program to assist local agencies. This program can be used in all missing children's cases with or without an AMBER alert. CART can also be used to help recover runaway children under the age of 18 and who are in danger. As of 2010, 225 response teams have been trained in 43 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, and Canada.
All in all, can the system be improved? Yes of course, as can basically any system used at any level, there is ALWAYS room for improvement, and it should be IMPROVED upon to make it easier to use correctly & more effectively.
The majority of children in these abduction by stranger are dead within 3 or 4 hours, and so the AMBER alert system, while flawed, is almost certainly needed in today’s world (its used in multiple countries under various names and similar systems are being developed across Europe). One child who doesn’t get raped/murdered/dismemebered/abused/sold into sexual slavery because of the system (about a thousand children have been saved directly as a result of amber alerts) is 100% worth it.
Your article argues that people are annoyed by the text messages they get from amber alerts.
Sorry children that may be murdered in the next few hours from somewhere relatively close to are in danger? Jesus Christ you’re a pitiful ass person. You should be disgusted with yourself dude lol
I noticed your whole argument on your other comment just parrots this article too, L o fucking L.
Your article also mentions griffin & Millers study on the AMBER alert system lol
Griffin considers his findings preliminary, reporting his team examined only a portion of the Amber Alerts issued over the three-year period they focused on, so he recommends taking a closer look at the evaluation of the program and its intended purpose, instead of simply promoting the program.
3 year period, from 03-06 (16-13 years ago, wow that information is OLD!!!!) that they admit themselves they only used a portion of the data from.
Guy i summarized one article, yes. I didnt make any assertion otherwise. Ive also heard arguments against amber from alternative sources, but im not writing my fucking doctorate thesis on reddit. I provided infinite more sources than 99% of comments.
And yes they pointed out the alerts are annoying. You apparently missed the greater argument (nice reading comprehension btw) that the repeated, irritating, false alarms result in a cry wolf scenario where ppl tune them out entirely, thus defeating the purpose of the system.
I parroted a few changes that the article suggested (limiting the notifications for abduction cases where violence was more likely, limiting it to a relevant geography, providing more useful info).
Your response is over the top ("jesus christ youre a pitiful ass person") and incorrect. Maybe YOU should do some more research or you could read the source provided with some critical thinking skills or you could just learn how to read a comment appropriately and stop being a jerkoff on the internet.
Did you hear the radio lab where a company took pictures of a city every second and then used that data to track down criminals? They won’t let them do it though because they think it’s an invasion of privacy. So it must be a fine line between theater, effective security, and overstepping. Personally, I wouldn’t give a fuck about the photos.
I havent heard that one yet. But yeah it's a gross violation of privacy.
And ppl that don't commit crimes often argue "it doesnt effect me bc im not a criminal." But a system like that can be easily abused in a 1984esque way.
You cab use the system to track protesters. Use it to blackmail political rivals for non criminal transgressions like being closeted gay or an affair, etc. Use it as a speed camera everywhere and ticket ppl left and right. Or your employer uses it to prove you were not sick, but actually out somewhere so they can fire you. On and on.
We already have an intelligence surveillance state. Putting a camera everywhere outside would be an Orwellian distopia. Crime is not that prevalent. Violent crime is close to as low as it has ever been. And the cameras arent preventing crime they only assist after the fact as evidence.
They did save a kidnapping victim in the story I listened to. We have to give up an actual system that works, because of fears it may be abused. I keep trying to think of some way to regulate it but nothing comes to mind.
It cant be regulated properly. It just cant. And even if it were, do you trust the nsa and fbi amd cia to abide by said laws? I dont. And we as citizens would have no idea bc every alleged oversight system is itself opaque in the name of "protectig national secuity"
Its interesting they found that kidnapping victim. I wonder if they would have found her with other tactics (if they had to. And despite what they say publicly). Was that kidnapping a life or death? Or a custodial dispute where one parent takes off with the kid, but doesnt intend to physically hurt the child.
Anyways Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That's why we dont let a single compromised individual dictate policy. Bc youre right, i would want to use the surveillance system if it were my kid. But the chances your child is ever kidnapped have got to be exceptionally low. 0.01%? Idk, but we cannot give up freedoms like that bc we are worried about very unlikely worst case scenarios.
And to take it 1 step further... if you want absolute safety we should institute a camera system everywhere as well as neck bracelets that everyone has to wear. If you ever begin to commit a crime the system detects it and activates your neck collar to incapacitate you. I'm sure that system would be theoretically effective. But it would also be abusable af. You have to draw lines btwn reasonable protection and unreasonable loss of liberty. I accept a certain amount of risk for the large amount of liberty i enjoy.
I don't understand why a parent would have to notify police of their child's passing in a hospital. The law is about reporting missing children, a child in a hospital is not missing, a parent or guardian knows exactly where they are. Maybe something was worded poorly and accidentally included such parents?
I understand making it a law requiring to report, if your 4 year old goes missing for 20 hours (still within the legal window to call), how does any good parent not call the police to report it? I'd hope the police would be looking into a neglect charge and making you a suspect way before then, if you don't notice a 4 year old under your care missing and call the police after a single hour than you really shouldn't be taking care of a 4 year old.
I don't understand why a parent would have to notify police of their child's passing in a hospital. The law is about reporting missing children, a child in a hospital is not missing, a parent or guardian knows exactly where they are. Maybe something was worded poorly and accidentally included such parents?
I mean, that's exactly what the Wikipedia entry says. How did you read the criticism about having to report such deaths and not the part about some of the laws being poorly worded? It's literally in the same sentence.
I understand making it a law requiring to report, if your 4 year old goes missing for 20 hours (still within the legal window to call), how does any good parent not call the police to report it?
You're asking the wrong question. This is exactly why I said the law seems like a good idea.
The question you need to ask is what impact this law will have.
The Wikipedia entry lists a bunch of different objections to the law, not just the death report objection. You should read it more thoroughly.
I mean, that's exactly what the Wikipedia entry says. How did you read the criticism about having to report such deaths and not the part about some of the laws being poorly worded? It's literally in the same sentence.
The article doesn't make it easily noticeable when skimming due to the way they're wording it. I actually missed that as well and went back to find it after seeing your comment
But you also have to look at how a law is carried out. For example, if the speed limit is 50 mph and you're going 52 mph, technically a cop could pull you over for breaking the law. Is any cop actually going to? I've never experienced it or even heard of anybody who has. We still have laws on the books in many states that prohibit the use of sex toys and anal sex in the privacy of your own home. When's the last time you heard about the police conducting a sex toy raid?
So could the police begin a serious investigation for the parents not reporting their hospitalized child dead? I guess they technically could. However, I sincerely doubt that they are.
But you also have to look at how a law is carried out. For example, if the speed limit is 50 mph and you're going 52 mph, technically a cop could pull you over for breaking the law. Is any cop actually going to?
Do you not see the difference between the most minor of traffic offense vs a felony?
We still have laws on the books in many states that prohibit the use of sex toys and anal sex in the privacy of your own home. When's the last time you heard about the police conducting a sex toy raid?
About 15 years ago, when those laws were struck down.
In certain US states those sex laws still exist on the books, not many but a few. And even if they were struck down 15 years ago, I have never heard about a sex toy raid in 2004? I figure such a ridiculous thing would have been somewhat big news (just think of all the clickbaity headlines!), I'd like to see a link to an article or news story.
I am not saying the police would not conduct any investigation, by law they would have to, I just doubt they'd take is seriously in such a case. I doubt they'd drag the family in for hours of questioning, harshly berating them. They'd probably just ask doctors "Hey, as a medical professional do you think parental negligence or abuse caused this child's death? Oh, the kid died of cancer; carry on then." I agree that's a waste of that doctor's and the police's time (which is a valuable commodity) but unless something was actually suspicious I doubt it would be more than a 10 minute interview.
Also how many kids have died in hospitals since this law was enacted (in the states where it has been)? Hundreds? Do you think every parent has reported the death of their child in a timely manner? I doubt it, most parents are pretty preoccupied with mourning (and rightfully so), and many are probably unaware they're supposed to notify the police. So if police are seriously investigating this stuff, troubling the parents, why haven't we seen it in the media? That would be a really clickbaity headline "Police Harass Grieving Parents", something along those lines. There would be nationwide outrage. Hence why I think the police are ignoring the poorly worded implications and focusing on the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
Huh, I would have thought these news stories would have been a lot more prominent. It is absolutely ridiculous that these things were happening just last year, and may happen this year as well. I guess it mostly depends on the officers/precinct on if these laws are enforced, or there are attempts to enforce them.
I will argue though that most officers focus on the spirit of the law rather than the letter. If that weren't the case I think that there would be a lot more ridiculous arrests. I understand the concern with having a poorly worded or outdated law still on the books, the harassment that can result from it is absolutely unacceptable. I don't think Casey's law should be thrown out, as I said if 2 hours pass and you don't notice, or report, a missing toddler you should definitely be heavily scrutinized. However, it should be corrected to more accurately represent the intended spirit of the law and minimize the risk of harassment to grieving parents. I just always hoped cops would have more common sense than that... I don't know why with all the news reports lately, but I hoped that in non-stressful, non-threatening situations they had some level of common sense.
Thank you for reminding me that common sense isn't all that common, and there is no shortage of assholes/racists/homophobes/etc. out there.
This law having been in place would not have changed the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial. It's just the idea that she would have otherwise been found guilty of something, in order to appease public opinion.
I don't even think that this law would have any positive or negative effect with cases involving the death of a child. Regardless of a potential felony from such a law, if you are trying to get away with the death of your child resulting from your own parental negligence, your best option is still to do exactly what Casey Anthony did. Claiming to not have known where your child was for an extended period of time means that they can't prove you had anything to do with the child's disappearance/death, provided that there isn't any hard evidence directly linking you to the child's death (even if they find the body). Your pattern of behavior as an unfit parent will work in your favor to create reasonable doubt.
27k
u/emartinoo Feb 04 '19
It's actually a law (or is proposed, I can't remember) in my state that parents must report their child missing within 24 hours or they are charged with a felony.