ACLU doesn't see problem with proposed laws criminalizing parental decision making

[BvBPL]

Hypothetical:

What if parent drops their child off at their grandparents, goes out and gets blind drunk, and then wakes up the next morning forgetting that the child is safe?

Is the parent negligent for not filing a missing person’s report in good faith? If the parent does call the cops, could the parent be prosecuted for filing a false report since the child is actually safe with the grandparents?

 

[JollyRoger]

I recognize that the government may think it needs to heavily regulate parents, but as a non-parent, I shouldn't have to pay taxes for so many government-run searches. This needs to be privatized.

 

[amadeus]

I recognize that the government may think it needs to heavily regulate parents, but as a non-parent, I shouldn't have to pay taxes for so many government-run searches. This needs to be privatized.

In cases of gross negligence, I'd say you're exactly right. I'm thinking about, for example, the cases of where some 14 year old girl wants to sail around the world and has her parents' blessing. In such an extraordinary case, I don't see why such a disproportionate amount of public resources should be allocated to letting the parents off the financial hook for the cost incurred of recovering the girl should something go awry.

 

[NickyJ]

Misleading thread title is a misleading thread title.

Anyway, I have no problem with that law. Missing children should by all means be reported. End of story.

 

[JollyRoger]

In cases of gross negligence, I'd say you're exactly right. I'm thinking about, for example, the cases of where some 14 year old girl wants to sail around the world and has her parents' blessing. In such an extraordinary case, I don't see why such a disproportionate amount of public resources should be allocated to letting the parents off the financial hook for the cost incurred of recovering the girl should something go awry.

Something lke this could be handled by search and rescue insurance, but so could other situations that require a massive effort. Parents are getting all sorts of tax breaks, so perhaps in return for being able to take certain tax breaks, they should be required to pay search and rescue insurance premiums.

 

[timtofly]

I recognize that the government may think it needs to heavily regulate parents, but as a non-parent, I shouldn't have to pay taxes for so many government-run searches. This needs to be privatized.

I am not following. One should not have to pay taxes on a mountain of "stuff" the government does. Who would pay for the search in this case? Who would subsidize it, if one could not pay? If you really want to free up tax payers money, stop making new laws and cut back to basic laws that do not protect the criminal, but then that would not be humane. There is no way to be humane without someone "else" paying for it. We are a society of no fault "lack of self control" individuals.

 

[amadeus]

Something lke this could be handled by search and rescue insurance, but so could other situations that require a massive effort. Parents are getting all sorts of tax breaks, so perhaps in return for being able to take certain tax breaks, they should be required to pay search and rescue insurance premiums.

Just so long as there's no legislation prohibiting them from denying pre-existing conditions.

 

[JollyRoger]

Who would pay for the search in this case? Who would subsidize it, if one could not pay?

If you have a child and want the associated tax break, you must show proof of search & rescue insurance. The insurance premiums would fund privatized search and rescue (which would be better than government-run search & rescue - right?) and the risk-takers would be funding it rather than those of us who responsibly choose not to enhance the need for search and rescue. I'm puzzled by some of you not being able to follow my logic here - especially those of you I borrowed it from.

Misleading thread title is a misleading thread title.

Did you miss the paragraph I quoted that makes the thread title spot on? It is refreshing to see some on here agreeing with the ACLU though.

 

[MobBoss]

So you are against these laws that require notification to the government? You would prefer a carve out that creates a safe harbor if the parent is taking action on their own or with the help of private persons and entities? How about pushing to privatizing child search so that we get higher quality searches? In other words, you cannot contact the government until you have employed a private search firm for x number of days.

Whats wrong with doing both? That is hiring a private entity to find the kid AND also notifying the police?

Seems due diligence to me. Especially if it becomes a criminal matter either way, then the cops should be involved regardless.

I think it should be expected of a parent to notify the police if a child goes missing longer than what is normally expected. To do anything less is parental negligence.

 

[JollyRoger]

Whats wrong with doing both?

The parents would be burdening us collectively with an issue that can be solved privately. The government shouldn't be turned to for every little thing, especially if there is a mechanism to induce the superior performance the free market provides.

 

[MobBoss]

The parents would be burdening us collectively with an issue that can be solved privately. The government shouldn't be turned to for every little thing, especially if there is a mechanism to induce the superior performance the free market provides.

Helping to find a lost child should never be a burden. In fact, I wouldnt want to live in a place that considered it so.

 

[warpus]

There are entities out there that are good at it, though they tend to utilize the government, so it is possible that they are undercutting their own effectiveness.

There's no way a private entity would ever have access to the same sort of resources that the cops do. What you are proposing is a bad idea.

 

[JollyRoger]

Helping to find a lost child should never be a burden. In fact, I wouldnt want to live in a place that considered it so.

But it is a burden. It costs money and resources. While there is a high profile search on, every criminal in town knows that law enforcement has diverted resources, thus making crime easier.

There's no way a private entity would ever have access to the same sort of resources that the cops do. What you are proposing is a bad idea.

What specific resources would those be?

 

[MobBoss]

But it is a burden. It costs money and resources. While there is a high profile search on, every criminal in town knows that law enforcement has diverted resources, thus making crime easier.

Thats mere speculation on your part....and your also making a broad assumption as to the merits of the search itself.

I have no problems 'burdening' our police forces with helping find lost children. In fact, I wonder why anyone would object to it actually.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have no problems 'burdening' our police forces with helping find lost children. In fact, I wonder why anyone would object to it actually.

As a taxpayer, I would encourage private solutions that put the financial burden on the risk takers (through search & rescue insurance) rather than the collective public at large. Every moment a cop is searching for a kid is a moment he is not working on another case. If the private search reveals that a crime has been committed, then get law enforcement involved.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I believe the police frequently charge parents with negligence, or at least have them investigated by child services, after they are requested to find lost toddlers. This is particularly true if they are from the lower social strata. It isn't cheap to have dozens of cops looking for a kid.

 

[MobBoss]

As a taxpayer, I would encourage private solutions that put the financial burden on the risk takers (through search & rescue insurance) rather than the collective public at large. Every moment a cop is searching for a kid is a moment he is not working on another case. If the private search reveals that a crime has been committed, then get law enforcement involved.

Come on Jolly, its a child for goodness sakes. Isnt that of a bit more concern than your pocketbook?

 

[JollyRoger]

Come on Jolly, its a child for goodness sakes. Isnt that of a bit more concern than your pocketbook?

That is why I am proposing that the superior skills of the private market be tasked to the search and rescue rather than the government.

 

[GenMarshall]

The police has better things to do than to find some bratty lost child.

 

[MobBoss]

That is why I am proposing that the superior skills of the private market be tasked to the search and rescue rather than the government.

You havent proven that said private market is superior in any way, shape or form. In addition, you havent countered why cant both systems be used at the same time for even greater effect.

The police has better things to do than to find some bratty lost child.

Wow. Just wow. Gotta ask.....how the living hell do you know the child is 'bratty'?