Well, then you ask, how thoroughly is this law enforced? If the law is such that they routinely enforce it and are strict in trying to bring to justice everyone who doesn’t report a dead body to the medical examiner, then, yes, it would be appropriate to charge them with that, maybe. But if this is a law that is almost never prosecuted, but is being charged in this case because people want to punish their teenagers for their legal action, then it’s an abuse of power. And it seems from the reports on this story, that that is what’s happening.
I’m sure that law sounds a lot better in the original German.
Is the US law under discussion one that minors should expect to know about or to act upon? Or is this something we expect of adults?
So what do they need to do, in your view, to be in compliance with the law? They posted the video on YouTube where it reached the attention of officials who summoned the district medical attorney.
I assume you argue that this does not comply with the law.
But you argue that calling the police complies with the law.
Does that state your views correctly?
If so, then what’s your defense against the zealous prosecutor who points out that calling the police is not the same as calling the district medical examiner? He wants to prosecute them, and he’s using the fact that they didn’t comply with the law to do so. You’re saying, “I think you’re covered.” But why, precisely, are you covered?
And if your answer is, “Because they reported it to police who then reported it to the district medical examiner,” then I’m asking if the real defendants can avoid conviction by pointing out they they uploaded the video to YouTube and that caused official notice and the summoning of the district medical examiner.
Where do you get that rule?
And in case anyone is not aware, there is a basic rule about criminal law: it is construed strictly against the government. That means if there are different ways of reading a law, the accused person gets the benefit of the doubt in construing that ambiguity.
A law that fails to give notice of specifically what conduct is forbidden is void for vagueness.
That’s the framework for construing all criminal law.
So what you are saying is, you don’t see anything wrong with laughing at a dying guy instead of helping him? 
I don’t know. John Q Public routinely sees criminals get into court, only to discover several charges have been dropped. Look at that monster that kept those two girls hostage for a decade. When it got to court he was charged with only a few counts of rape, when he raped them both literally thousands of times! Lots of high profile defendeents seem to be able to work the system to get everything but the least charge dropped.
So, I think people are more than accustomed to seeing the charging/convicting of criminals manipulated in ways that are never explained, clear or even marginally sensible to any non court employee.
This just seems more of the same to most people I expect. Manipulation of the system perhaps, but as it’s usually revealed to be only to the benefit of the accused, in this instance it would seem to be the reverse.
I don’t think it’s a huge deal for people because they see the system routinely played by judges, lawyers and defendants, so seeing prosecutors do the same isn’t unexpected really.
Plus, even if they do find a way to charge them with some minor crime, the consequences will be so minimal that few think it’s worth getting pissed about regardless!
Not the same thing at all. While I’m not for a moment condoning what those kids are alleged to have done, there’s a huge difference between committing a crime as heinous as premediated murder in a quiet mountain down, and callously laughing as someone drowns.
Like the OP, I’m not fond of the idea of going well out of the way to find something to charge people who are being abhorrent dickheads with. And I think there probably should be a sort of sunset clause on laws covering minor (or relatively minor) crimes, or things that made sense decades ago but don’t anymore - say, laws against tampering with a steam engine that would have been a serious issue in 1917 but really are just anachronisms nowadays.
is today the day we compete over who can construct the best strawman? “Wrong” and “illegal” are not always the same thing.
If they had taken the video, and sent it to the police, that’d be one thing. But they did not send it to the police, the police had to find it on their own. That’s not reporting, that’s the police coming across a rumor that they need to check out.
We may be talking past each other, as you keep going on the who, and I am talking about the what. I do feel that any authority who has a duty to report to the ME is the same as an ME when it comes to reporting. I do not feel that posting a video on youtube can be considered reporting.
I am not sure why you think that reporting a dead body to the appropriate authorities who report to the ME would not be the same as reporting to the ME, but IANAL, so it is entirely possible that the legal system is even stupider than I thought, has no capability of judging circumstances, and takes things that literally that pretty much anyone who has ever reported a dead body has broken the law, as I doubt many called the ME, but probably called the police or EMTs.
The reason that this law is obscure is not because it needs to be trotted out only when you need to find a gotcha, but because most people who find a body will report it. The people who don’t report it are not going to leave evidence that they ever saw it, so while they broke the law, there is no way to prosecute without evidence. If someone is stupid enough to provide evidence of their crime to the police, then prosecuting them makes sense.
The fact that people can get away with breaking the law easily does not mean that the law has no validity. 99% of the people I see speeding every day get away with it just fine, does that mean that the laws we have against speeding are invalid or obscure? If someone videos themselves driving drunk at 120mph, is it stretching the speeding laws to charge them?
I am not sure what the penalty is for the law, so that does matter. If it’s a felony that they will go to jail for years, then yeah, it’s a stretch. If it’s a misdemeanor with a fine and maybe a little community service, then that is exactly the sort of deterrence needed to keep people from leaving corpses to rot undiscovered.
My point is, they broke a law, that has a perfectly valid reason for existing, that exists for public safety, and is only rarely enforced because most people don’t need it to be a law, and comply with it without even knowing whether or not they legally have to. I see no problem with charging them with breaking this law. I don’t see it as trying to find something to charge them with, it’s not stretching the purpose or intent of the law, it is applying the law specifically as intended. If you see a dead body, report it to the authorities so that it can be investigated and cleaned up.
Now, if there were also a law about rendering aid, then that is the law that they would be charged with as the primary, and the charges for not reporting the body would probably be dropped in a plea deal.
Intuitively, no, because they called emergency services, who are required by law to perform the correct actions and negotiations regarding a dead body.
I agree there should be some sort of law punishing anyone who has a phone, sees someone in mortal danger, and fails to report the event to emergency services. Of course there would have to be qualificications; of course you’d never catch every fish in the river… the point would be to have a way to prosecute such egregious, self-documented fecklessness that results in someone dying.
The guy drowned. People who could have called for help did not. It ought to be possible to criminalize that without throwing society into turmoil.
Ok, so imagine I am the zealous prosecutor charging them when they called police, and I say to you, “I feel that the law specifies the district medical examiner, and so just calling the police isn’t enough. I know you ‘feel’ differently, but my feeling should be the one that controls the outcome here, especially since I am following the law as it’s written.”
Then I guess I say that it is your responsibility to convince a judge or a jury of that, I’ll get me a lawyer, and we’ll duke it out in court. I think I will win, and the prosecutor will annoy the judge.
IANAL, so I don’t know exactly how such things work, but I was looking at my local tax forms, and they say they need to be turned in to the city tax commissioner. I once waved at the tax commissioner as he walked by, but I have never turned anything in directly to him, I have always dealt with other people in the tax office that report to him, is every tax payer in my city breaking the law?
You keep getting hung up on this “report to the ME” phrase, and I’m not sure exactly why. It seems pretty standard practice that reporting to people who report to someone is the same as reporting to that person. Your example would be a reach. Your example would be the definition of finding something to charge them with. Your example would probably never come up, and if it did, would be slapped down.
This is in comparison to a law that has a valid reason for existing, in that it is against public safety to have corpses laying around rotting. Not only is it a public health hazard, but it delays and confounds any investigation into the nature of the body. It makes it harder to ID, it makes it harder to tell how it came to be dead, it delays notification of loved ones who need closure. I can think of many reasons why it should be legally expected that if you come across a dead body, you should let the appropriate authorities know.
Is it the existence of the law or the specific wording of the law that bothers you? If the law said “report to M.E., Police, EMT’s, Firefighters, or other recognized public authority” would you have the same objection to these kids being charged?
Suppose some small group of people had witnessed the same event, determined that they were unable to help, foolishly afraid that they’d be blamed for causing the man’s death if they reported it. Later they come forward to say they saw it happen after the body was found by someone else. Should prosecutor’s be looking for some law to charge them with in that circumstance, or is it just the outrage because of the behavior of the assholes who actually did see this that prompts the desire to prosecute?
And once again, what if a hundred people witnessed this event? Was each of them obligated to report this incident to the ME? Has anyone ever been charged with a violation of this law that had no active role in a person’s death?
Except that the law doesn’t SAY “appropriate authorities,” and the body they encountered was not dead. It was thrashing about.
Well, yeah, I’d say that they should be prosecuted, as they were aware of the location of a dead body, and did not report it. The fact that someone else found it and reported it doesn’t really get them off the hook.
Now, the fact that there was no evidence for them having broken the law means that they could get off without prosecution, and them coming forward certainly gives reason to consider not pressing charges, but yeah, they broke the law. They left a body to rot where no one knew where it was. They delayed investigation and identification. They delayed notification of family. If the other person hadn’t happened to come across it, then it would have been there for who knows how long.
In your hypothetical, you didn’t give a timeframe, just a “later.” Do you feel that circumstances are different if that later is an hour, a day, a week, or a year?
All witnesses would have an obligation to give a statement to the police. I don’t see how it is a matter than everyone needs to make the call, but everyone does need to stick around in case the police want a statement, that would be reporting.
So, your only problem with the law is the wording of it? The existence of the law, if it said, “or appropriate authorities” would not bother you?
If you were actually here arguing that they reported it to the police, but that thy were being prosecuted for not reporting to the ME, then I’d be there with you, that’s quite a stretch, but they reported to no one, it cannot be argued that the people they reported to are or are not in a chain of reporting to the ME, and whether that counts, because they didn’t report to anyone at all.
First, it’s not a problem I have. I am exploring a hypothetical in an effort to understand your thinking.
Within the confines of my hypothetical, I am asking what your objection is to prosecuting them for failing to follow the law as written, when it seems to me that in the real-worked scenario, you are in favor of a prosecution for not following the law as written.
Did you follow, and agree with, the rule of lenient construction for criminal law that I mentioned above?
I, too, am exploring a hypothetical to understand your thinking. If the law was the same as written, but included the language “or appropriate authorities” then it’d be fine?
My thinking is straightforward. If you have deliberately initiated actions with the intent and likely consequence of the M.E. being reported to, then you have reported to the M.E. That doesn’t seem to be a stretch or anything, that seems an extremely straightforward reading. What would be a stretch would be your hypothetical of having reported to the police, but then being charged with not reporting directly to the M.E. Unless the word “directly” is in the law, then anything that ends up putting a report on the M.E.'s desk is reporting to the M.E.
I haven’t seen a response to this yet. Maybe Bricker could chime in. In the meantime, it took a little search term juggling and link following but I found this:
Which to my semi-educated layperson’s eye looks to me like Florida’s law only applies to sexual battery.
Exactly. If ElvisL1ves had actually clicked on the links provided in his post, and read the text of the law, it would have become very clear, even to a layman, why the Florida law would not apply in this case.
The purpose of government is a topic that is, admittedly, open to debate. But, we can say that the Constitution expressly states that one goal is to “provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States.”
To be sure, we live in a country that advocates the rule of law, but legalism is (to some extent) just navel gazing. Laws aren’t created to prevent specific acts, they are created so as to ensure the general welfare of the people.
Let’s take, for example, child molestation. Most pedophiles (as I understand it) would most likely fail to be prosecuted in court, because the crime tends to be very difficult to prove (blow jobs, hand jobs, etc.) and comes down on “hearsay” evidence. But, just being taken to trial is a scary thing for most suspects, so they will often accept a deal with the prosecutor, which might have requirements like staying away from schools, staying away from their stepkids, etc. The end result of this is that a man has not been prosecuted or convicted of any crime, but is still being punished.
Obviously, that’s not ideal, but thanks to this strategy being discovered, it’s likely that thousands of children across the country have been protected from further abuse.
It’s vitally necessary that we hold close to the rule of law, and don’t get too loose with it. But 100% adherence is almost certainly stupid, just as it would be stupid to let people build nuclear weapons in their back yard based on the 2nd Amendment or to allow people to send bomb threats around town, willy-nilly, on the basis of the 1st Amendment. There is a breaking point at which strict adherence is just the playground of dope smoking crazies and for the rest of us it’s just being a crank.
If we’ve got sufficient evidence that these kids are psychopaths that probably spend their weekends beating up homeless people, checking the books to see if there’s a real, on the books crime that they’re guilty of doesn’t sound like a particularly horrible plan.
On the other hand, doing so without being certain that the kids are future wife beaters and psychopaths, and instead simply looking at the law books because of media rage, probably isn’t a good use of legal stretching.
Personally, I don’t think that it’s likely that we on the internet have a deep enough sense for how much this is a needed or abhorrent step.