“This Isn’t About Casey Anthony Anymore”

Abstract

The 2011 trial of Casey Anthony for the murder of her child, Caylee, dominated media, public, and political attention in the United States. Anthony’s acquittal prompted many lawmakers to rally around “Caylee’s Law,” legislation that criminalizes the failure to report a missing child. This article considers the political rhetoric of Caylee’s Law by qualitatively evaluating statements made by state policymakers across the United States for the 12 months following Anthony’s acquittal. Policymakers’ rhetoric on Caylee’s Law exemplified the tendency to mobilize political action around “triggering events” through claims-making, to justify new penal legislation on the basis of worst case scenarios and public fears, and to demonize the accused in ways that reaffirm social solidarity in the face of heinous crimes. Policymakers used a variety of interconnected techniques to make claims about child protection, to justify the need for Caylee’s Law, and to label and degrade Casey Anthony.

Keywords

claims-making community perceptions public policies parental responsibility political rhetoric

Introduction

On July 5, 2011, at the conclusion of a highly publicized case, Casey Anthony was acquitted for the abuse and murder of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee in Florida (see Riparbelli, 2011). An important part of the trial had focused on the extended length of time it took for Casey to report her daughter missing to police. Through the media coverage of the trial, the public learned that Florida law did not require parents or guardians to inform law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within a given time period. As such, even though Casey Anthony waited 31 days to report her daughter missing, prosecutors could not charge her with violating any existing law by waiting so long. Although Anthony was charged and convicted on four counts of providing false information to authorities, this was not a result of waiting to report her daughter missing.¹

Media coverage about, and the public’s response to, the verdict (and at Casey Anthony) came swiftly. For example, within hours of the verdict, Oklahoma resident Michelle Crowder set up a petition on the website Change.org (2012) that called for the enactment of new state laws (nationwide) related to the case. Crowder’s proposed law would make it a felony for a parent or guardian to not report a child missing within 24 hr of learning of the disappearance. Crowder named the proposed law “Caylee’s Law” after the victim in the case (Caylee Anthony). This move echoed the similarly emotionally laden strategy used to garner support for other child protection laws by naming them after high-profile child victims (e.g., Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law; Simon, 2000).

The number of signatures on the petition grew quickly. The petition was posted on June 6, 2011, just 1 day after the verdict. By the following day, the petition had more than 100,000 signatures, and after just 4 days, more than 1,000,000 signatures (Change.org, 2012). As of June 5, 2012, the petition had accumulated 1,308,199 signatures from individuals across the country. The petition also garnered much media attention when it was initially posted (e.g., Riparbelli, 2011), likely helping to increase the number of people who signed it.

A public opinion poll conducted July 2011, just 1 month after the verdict (and the start of the petition), indicated solid support for Caylee’s Law across the United States. Specifically, the representative poll found that approximately 7 in 10 Americans supported enacting state legislation that would “make it a felony for parents or guardians to wait more than an hour before reporting the death or disappearance of a child to the proper authorities” (Angus Reid Public Opinion, 2011, p. 6).

Across the country, at least 124 state representatives and senators from 34 states responded to this public support by calling for or otherwise discussing the enactment of Caylee’s Law in their states (see Table 1). In the months following the verdict, proposals for Caylee’s Law were introduced in state legislatures around the country (Associated Press, 2011a). Through press releases, newspaper op-eds, speeches, and interviews with the media, politicians discussed the need for such a law and their intentions to propose or support some version of Caylee’s Law in their respective jurisdictions.

Table 1.

Policymaker Characteristics.

	Political party
Position	Republican	Democrat	Independent	Total
State representatives and delegates	44 (35.2%)	32 (25.6%)	0 (0.0%)	76 (60.8%)
State senators	32 (25.6%)	16 (12.8%)	1 (0.1%)	49 (39.2%)
Total	76 (60.8%)	48 (38.4%)	1 (0.1%)	125 (100%)

Note. One Republican U.S. Representative, Rep. Sean Duffy (WI), is not included in this table but is included in the analysis of rhetoric.

While calls for new legislation following high-profile cases involving children as victims, and White children especially, are common in contemporary penal policymaking (Simon, 2007), the Casey Anthony case provides an opportunity to examine how policymakers promote the need for new legislation in a case involving familial violence, rather than stranger-perpetrated offenses. That is, familial violence precludes the common “stranger danger” rhetoric that has been used in the past to promote and justify legislation such as sex offender registries and residence restrictions (Best, 1990; Corrigan, 2006; Levenson, 2006), and/or to describe perpetrators of abuse (Kitzinger, 2004). Furthermore, research has found that familial violence is underreported by the news media, particularly in cases of child molestation (Cheit, 2003). Thus, the rhetoric used by politicians about Caylee’s Law may share some similarities to the rhetoric used for previous child safety laws, but may also have some unique traits given the familial relationship between the victim and the offender.

Examining political rhetoric in support of Caylee’s Law can provide insight into how politicians both develop and appeal to public support for reactive laws by deploying rhetorical tools to capitalize on high-profile incidents and related constituent emotions. This is important, as the way policymakers present rhetorical arguments can have an influence on the future of proposed laws and on future public sentiment. For instance, in an analysis of legislative debate concerning Megan’s Law, Filler (2001) noted that policymakers’ rhetoric can help encourage support (and influence votes) for a new policy, can shape the public’s understanding of the event (and the associated law) being discussed, and, in some cases, can help influence how courts interpret the new law.

While Filler (2001) focused on the rhetoric of state and congressional legislative debates, the ubiquity of 24-hour news networks, online media sources, and website press releases means that policymakers can easily address the public directly shortly after a tragic event occurs (Jasper, 2001). In doing so, they can begin composing a narrative of both the event and proposed policy even before the legislature considers and debates the law.² This study considers how policymakers use rhetoric to discuss policy when addressing the public via the media. This is important because these early-stage processes may, in turn, influence the proposal and passage of laws, as well as help influence later public opinion of, and support for, policymakers’ political ambitions (Beckett, 1999; E. K. Brown, 2011; Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, & Sasson, 1992; Garland, 2001).

This study examines how state policymakers used political rhetoric and engaged in labeling and claims-making to justify Caylee’s Law proposals. For the purposes of this study, a state policymaker is considered an elected delegate, representative, or senator currently serving in a state legislature. This study uses a qualitative contextual analysis to examine press releases, op-eds, and media-reported quotes by state-level policymakers in the year following the Casey Anthony verdict. Understanding how politicians built the argument for Caylee’s Law can help inform on the ways that politicians can react to high-profile child victim cases, as well as how they can “sell” the public on laws that focus on exceptionally rare circumstances.

The analysis focuses on the ways in which a “triggering event” (McGarrell & Castellano, 1991), such as the death of Caylee Anthony and the failed prosecution of her mother, is discussed by political leaders.³ The analysis examines themes within policymaker rhetoric that emerged inductively from a data set of public statements on both the case and on Caylee’s Law proposals.

It should be noted that the focus of this analysis is on the content of political rhetoric of policymakers, rather than on the dynamics of public opinion or media coverage on the case. While news media certainly are active in constructing representations of order (and disorder; Ericson, Baranek, & Chan, 1991), and in this case selecting which policymaker quotes are highlighted in newspaper articles, the ability of policymakers to write unedited op-eds and post press releases, and the inclusion of these in this study’s data, is expected to help counteract at least some of the potential media coverage bias.⁴ Still, the influence of the media’s secondary claims-making (Best, 1990) is likely to bias coverage (and thus the current study’s data) toward more dramatic quotes.

Triggering Events and Political Rhetoric on Crime Control

In the politicized arena of U.S. crime control policymaking over the last 50 years, it has become common for political leaders to seize upon high-profile tragedies and propose new criminal legislation in response to cases covered extensively by news media (Green, 2008; Simon, 2007). Political platforms have been built on singular but highly symbolic and emotionally charged “triggering events,” such as the death of Len Bias in the 1980s as a result of a drug overdose (McGarrell & Castellano, 1991). These incidents often become mechanisms for identifying crime control problems and for justifying proposed solutions (Caplow & Simon, 1999; Stone, 2001). Rhetoric and discourse among political leaders, shared with the public via the media in the form of “causal stories,” socially and politically constructs problems such as drug use and abuse, violence, sex offenders, and child abuse (Best, 2009; Loseke, 2003; Stone, 1989; Sutherland, 1950). Indeed, claims-making about crime and the need for new laws very often focuses on just such “atrocity tales” (Best, 1987, p. 114). In this current instance, the atrocity includes the death of Caylee Anthony, the failure of her mother to report her disappearance, and the State’s ineffective prosecution of the case.

Triggering events interact with media coverage, public fear, advocacy efforts, and agendas in ways that are complicated and often difficult to disentangle (Roberts, Stalans, Indermaur, & Hough, 2002). As Garland and others have pointed out, the “culture of control” that dominated crime control policymaking in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st is marked by a preoccupation with risk, fear of crime, intense (often racialized) social anxieties, and a tendency to idealize crime victims (Garland, 2001; Simon, 2007; Tonry, 2007).

The trend of naming laws after particular victims, and in response to particular circumstances, emerged out of a social control policy landscape featuring intensive and emotion-laden media attention to crime, politicization by elected officials, and the increasing prominence of single-issue advocacy groups (particularly at the state and national levels; Beckett, 1999; L. L. Miller, 2008; Tonry, 2004). Calls for Caylee’s Law followed similar legislative reactions for victims such as Adam Walsh (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act), Amber Hagerman (Amber Alert), Jacob Wetterling (Jacob Wetterling Act), Jessica Lunsford (Jessica’s Law), and Megan Kanka (Megan’s Law). In each of these cases, naming legislation after particular victims personalized the crime, added emotional gravity to policy discussions, and created compelling media and political narratives.⁵

A few prior studies have examined how legislators use rhetoric in proposing crime control policies, and child safety laws in particular (e.g., Filler, 2001; Griffin & Miller, 2008; Marion & Oliver, 2012). Perhaps the most detailed analysis was Filler’s (2001) examination of Congressional and New York State legislative debates over Megan’s Law. In that study, Filler noted that policymakers can use debates to help influence voting decisions, as an education tool for the public and as a way to help courts interpret the law. The Megan’s Law debate included three common themes: (a) the need for the law, (b) the benefits of the law, and (c) potential problems with the law (Filler, 2001).

Filler’s (2001) analysis found that when policymakers discussed the need for Megan’s Law, they used three rhetorical tools. First, they frequently used anecdotal narratives involving high-profile stories of child victims to present the law in terms of a particularly horrific case. They recalled the stories of other child victims, including well-known national stories such as Amber Hagerman, and locally known cases involving children from the policymaker’s jurisdiction. Some policymakers recalled memories of “safer times” as a comparison to today’s more dangerous world (and, thus, as a way to show that new policies are needed; Filler, 2001).

Second, they used (sometimes dubious) statistical claims to establish that child abuse was a widespread problem that needed a policy intervention (Filler, 2001). This process of using numbers and statistics to justify policy proposals is a central feature of claims-making (Best, 1990; Stone, 2001). Finally, policymakers used rhetoric to label and devalue sex offenders, referring to them as “monsters,” “predators,” “animals,” and “beasts” (Filler, 2001; Garfinkel, 1956). As a result, sex offenders were made out to be different from (and a danger to) the rest of the public, a process partially reflective of a status degradation ceremony (Garfinkel, 1956). Conversely, some policymakers used personal testimony as a way to connect themselves with the story of Megan Kanka, and to make it clear that they shared the same values as voters. All of these tactics helped establish why Megan’s Law was needed.

In discussing the law’s potential benefits, policymakers focused on two issues: increased child safety and giving meaning to Megan Kanka’s life (Filler, 2001). Regarding child safety, policymakers referenced Megan’s murder and suggested that had the bill been in place, Megan Kanka may have been saved. Some policymakers also suggested that other victims may still be alive were the law in place. Policymakers made it clear that the law would help protect children by deterring offenders, and would “enhance police detection of child offenders, and empower parents and neighborhoods to protect children” (Filler, 2001, p. 342). Relatedly, policymakers promoted the idea that Megan’s Law would give meaning to Megan Kanka’s life (and death). This rhetoric helped clearly link the legislation with the sympathetic victim, and show that policymakers’ efforts were directly related to the original crime (Filler, 2001).

The potential problems with the law were also discussed, although infrequently. Although this discussion came mainly from a single policymaker, the major issues involved infringing on the rights of sex offenders, the potential for vigilantism against sex offenders, infringing on state’s rights (as discussed by Federal lawmakers), and suggestions that the law would not apply to most cases. Rather than addressing these issues, Filler (2001) found that “the bill’s backers, for the most part, sidestepped these concerns” (p. 346).

The Present Study

The findings of Filler (2001) provide a good starting point for examining the rhetoric surrounding Caylee’s Law. That is, the common themes and similarities in prior child safety laws provide a basis for investigating the rhetoric involving Caylee’s Law.⁶ However, this study is also interested in examining the differences in policymaker rhetoric, due to the uniqueness of the Casey Anthony case.⁷ The next section describes the methodology used in the current study, and is then followed by a presentation of the findings of the analysis. The “Discussion” section will tie the findings of the present study back to the prior findings concerning other child safety policies, as well as the integrative conflict perspective, claims-making, and labeling theory. The “Conclusion” section considers implications of the current findings.

Method

As noted earlier, this study examines rhetoric used by policymakers in discussing Caylee’s Law with the public. Data for this study were collected from LexisNexis archives, Google News archives, and “regular” Google searches using the search terms “Caylee’s Law” and “Caylee Anthony.” These searches were run a week after the Anthony trial verdict, and again approximately 1 year after the verdict. The search procedures included examining any and all news articles in local or national newspapers, policymaker press releases, and op-eds (when written by a state policymaker) that were available in an electronic form. All articles, press releases, and op-eds uncovered in the search process that were electronically published between July 5, 2011, and July 5, 2012, and included direct quotes from state policymakers regarding Caylee’s Law were included in the initial data set. When identical news stories were published through multiple sources (e.g., an Associated Press article published in multiple local newspapers), a single version of the story (and associated quotes) was kept. This search and sorting process resulted in more than 120 unique media accounts, press releases, and op-eds that met the criteria for inclusion in the data set.⁸

From the initial search documents, quotes were extracted into a database that identified both what was said and what policymaker said it. For the purposes of this study, quotes were considered to be any words located between quotation marks that were attributed to a specific policymaker either in a news article or a press release. For op-eds written in the first person by an identified policymaker, the full text of the op-ed was considered to be a quote. When multiple sources used the same quote, or used various pieces of a larger quote, these were combined into one instance of the most complete quote for that policymaker. Quotes were then aggregated by policymaker (keeping source information) prior to coding.

The Data

As noted earlier, and in Table 1, the final data set included quotes from 125 unique State Delegates, Representatives, and Senators from 34 states.⁹ Of these, 76 were State Delegates or Representatives, and 49 were State Senators. There were 76 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. In addition, 1 U.S. Republican Congressional Representative wrote an op-ed about Caylee’s Law, and as this op-ed was (publicly) urging the policy actions of Wisconsin State Senators, it was included in the sample as well (for a final total of 126 policymakers). There was an average of about 115 words of quotes per policymaker in the final data set, ranging from just 4 words (“Certainly it makes sense.”) to 786 words.

Coding Approach

Data were coded using a general inductive approach (Thomas, 2006) rooted in a grounded theory perspective (Strauss, 1987). Grounded theory is an approach that stresses inductive development of ideas directly from the data, with the goal of informing theory and developing new perspectives (Strauss, 1987). One of the key features of grounded theory is that it is an interactive process, whereby theory is developed and refined at the same time the data are being analyzed (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

In this coding process, themes and codes emerge from the data directly, and do not necessarily reflect any specific a priori expectations. However, part of using grounded theory involves familiarization with the topic and the data, which can result in “sensitizing concepts” that “provide directions along which to look” (Blumer, 1954, p. 7). In this instance, some of these sensitizing concepts stem from the prior literature on how rhetoric is employed by policymakers discussing public safety legislation (e.g., Best, 1990; Filler, 2001; Griffin & Miller, 2008; Marion & Oliver, 2013), as well as from familiarization with the actual data during the coding process. These sensitizing concepts form the conceptual framework for the study (see G. A. Bowen, 2006), and include justifying the need for the law, explaining the benefits of the law, and the potential problems with the law.¹⁰ Alternatively, one important part of using grounded theory involves actively searching for cases that do not meet the conceptual framework (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 2009). In this case, this meant searching the data for themes that departed from the concepts advanced by prior researchers such as Filler (2001).

The coding process involved the first author “open coding” the entire data set to inductively identify themes within policymaker rhetoric. The second author independently reviewed a random sampling of 50% of the data for thematic content . This review provided a check on the interpretations of the first author. Unlike structured coding, in which intercoder reliability figures are produced after two or more researchers code data using a formal codebook, the interpretive and thematic nature of open coding means that quantitative reliability estimates are not meaningful. Despite this, care was taken to use two researchers to identify and critically evaluate the themes presented.

The actual coding process utilized NVivo 10. NVivo is a qualitative data program that allows for the creation of concept labels (“nodes” or “parent nodes”) and nested sub-concepts (“child nodes”), with textual excerpts placed into those nodes (Dum & Fader, 2013; Fader & Dum, 2013). As noted earlier, the coding was influenced, in part, by the sensitizing concepts from the existing literature, and also involved coding for other emerging themes. This process resulted in broad categories of codes (e.g., “need,” “support,” “action”) being applied to selections of text. The exact names of these codes were decided upon by the coder. These broad categories of codes, and the associated text, were then examined in more detail to identify more specific sub-codes (e.g., “priority,” “agreement,” “punishment”).

The coding process initially resulted in a total of 18 category codes (“parent nodes”) and 157 sub-categories (“child nodes”), excluding another 125 nodes that identified the specific policymaker(s) the quote was attributed to. A list of the parent and child nodes is available upon request. From these codes, multiple themes were identified.

Findings

Four central themes emerged from the inductive analysis of elected officials’ discussions on Caylee’s Law. These themes involve (a) supporting the need for the law, (b) the benefits of the law, (c) the potential problems with the law, and (d) the labeling of individuals or actions. Taken together, these four central themes are in line with the themes identified by Filler (2001). Each of these themes is discussed in more detail below.

The first theme considers the way that policymakers justify the need for Caylee’s Law. Policymakers told anecdotal narratives, cited input from their constituents and statistics related to child safety, used words that implied a need to act quickly to promote child safety, or otherwise justified the reasons for supporting and passing Caylee’s Law. The second theme involves the potential benefits of Caylee’s Law. Policymakers used language that implied the law would increase child safety, perhaps by deterring potential offenders or because of an increased response by law enforcement officials. They also implied that the law would increase the punishment given to those who commit undesirable acts, and would send a message to these individuals about some of the basic beliefs of the community.

The third theme involves acknowledging or addressing the potential problems with Caylee’s Law. Although not very prevalent, some policymakers did address this issue in passing. They pointed out the potential problems of the law, allayed concerns with the law’s implementation or impacts, or indicated that the law would be carefully considered and crafted in such a way as to minimize potential problems. The fourth theme considers rhetoric that labels a person or group in a way that both distinguishes them from the rest of society and implies the need for special regulations pertaining to their behavior. In their rhetoric on Caylee’s Law, policymakers appear to have sought to label certain actions in a way that defined them as deviant or, alternatively, that labeled certain actions as normal and acceptable behavior.

Need

As Best (1987) has noted, it is critical for claims-makers to effectively construct “warrants” or statements that justify the need for a particular law or proposal (p. 108). Policymaker rhetoric on the need for Caylee’s Law involved a number of different characteristics. In justifying the law, 15 policymakers cited contact from their constituents as a driving force. In particular, policymakers referenced public concern that came from members of the public not affiliated with advocacy efforts. This tendency to reference unsolicited public input, especially input from local constituents not connected with formal advocacy campaigns, is a way for policymakers to appear responsive to real public opinion while justifying their actions (E. K. Brown, 2011; Herbst, 1998).

To get 186 unsolicited emails and most of them are people that have not contacted the office before, shows how much this issue has really touched a nerve with people . . . Our job is at the end of the day to represent our constituents and at the maximum they want us to take a look at this. (Rep. DePasquale, D-PA) (Arbogast, 2011)

I have received about 400 emails on “Caylee’s Law” and they are all from my district. So it’s almost unprecedented. (Sen. Howell, R-VA) (WVIR, 2011)

It’s rare for us to get this many contacts. It really resonates, especially when so many come from the district. (Sen. Flexer, D-CT) (Smith, 2011)

Beyond political responsiveness to public concern, the most direct way policymakers expressed the need for Caylee’s Law was by alluding to the weakness of existing laws. For example, eight policymakers noted that although they respected the decision of the judge and jury, they disagreed with the outcome of the trial, due in part to the inadequate state of existing laws. Unsurprisingly, half were from Florida, the site of the Casey Anthony trial, and, thus, they were discussing the deficiencies with their own state’s laws.

While the process that produced the verdict must be respected, the deficiencies in our laws that have become apparent from this case should not be. It’ll never be justice for Caylee, but it’s a much-needed adjustment to our laws. (Rep. Diaz, R-FL) (“Anthony Verdict Sparks ‘Caylee’s Law’ Proposal in Florida,” 2011)

While I respect the judicial process and the burden of proof that exists in such cases, I join my fellow Floridians in voicing concern about any inconsistencies or inadequacies in the law that could potentially lead to future issues such as this. (Sen. Evers, R-FL) (Kennedy, 2011)

It’s not our job to agree or disagree with a particular jury. We should respect the work of all our juries who do the best they can with the facts that they have. (Sen. Negron, R-FL) (Kaczor, 2012)

This rhetoric allowed policymakers to express their displeasure with the individual verdict, while expressing their faith in and support for the criminal justice system. It also served to redirect attention away from any flaws in the trial process, avoid criticizing the actions of specific court actors (e.g., prosecution, judge, jury), and instead focus attention on the need to modify the laws that are used by the system. This message was effectively a warrant that existing policies were inadequate and in need of fixing (see Best, 1987).

Best (1987) also noted that one rhetorical technique in claims-making involves discussing the moment the problem is discovered (see also Pfohl, 1977). Indeed, at least 15 policymakers suggested that the Casey Anthony trial was directly responsible for uncovering a weakness in the existing laws.

The Casey Anthony trial exposed a weakness in the law. We’re going to close it. (Sen. Taylor, R-AL) (Loftin, 2011)

The case of Caylee Anthony . . . has uncovered inconsistencies and inadequacies in our law that allow negligent parents to go without answering for their actions. (Sen. Greenstein, D-NJ) (Roderer, 2011)

The Casey Anthony trial has shined a bright light on the gap in many states’ laws, including Tennessee’s, regarding the reporting of a missing child. (Sen. Ketron, R-TN) (Stockard, 2011)

By describing the lack of a mandatory reporting period as a weakness, it signaled that this was something that needed to be fixed about the law, and therefore helped policymakers justify their proposing of such changes. Indeed, four policymakers implied that there was a legal “loophole” that specifically needed fixing.

The fact that this is not already a law on the books in Massachusetts is an oversight, and [the law] will close that loophole. (Rep. Linksky, D-MA) (“State House Hearing on ‘Caylee’s Law’ Set for Wednesday,” 2011)

Caylee’s Law remedies what was an apparent loophole in the law that could be exploited by a small number of individuals who carelessly put the well-being of children at risk. (Sen. Allen, R-NJ) (Bauer, 2012)

The case also exposed a statutory loophole in laws relating to the reporting of missing children. (Sen. Shortey, R-OK) (“Oklahoma Senate Approves Caylee’s Law,” 2012)

Related to this discovery/identification of weakness was the theme of needing to strengthen the existing laws through the passage of Caylee’s Law. Twenty policymakers directly identified strengthening laws, tightening laws, or making existing laws tougher as goals of passing Caylee’s Law.

The tragic case of Caylee Anthony in Florida has highlighted the need to strengthen our child protection laws. (Rep. Simmons, R-PA) (“Simmons, Toohil Propose Tougher Penalties for Child Protection Laws,” 2011)

The tragic deaths of Leiby Kletzky and Caylee Anthony illustrate the need to strengthen our laws to protect children. (Sen. Lanza, R-NY) (“Senate Introduces ‘Protect Our Children’ Act,” 2011)¹¹

As Tennessee lawmakers, we cannot do anything to change the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial in Florida, but we can and should strengthen our laws here in Tennessee. (Sen. Stewart, D-TN) (WKRN.com, 2011)

This argument is essentially a revised form of the weakness rhetoric. That is, focusing on the need to strengthen existing laws inherently suggests that existing laws are somehow deficient, and this deficiency can be fixed through the enactment of Caylee’s Law. Indeed, if a law is weak, the obvious fix would be to make it stronger.

Policymakers also noted that the law was needed to help ensure speedy reporting to law enforcement to save children’s lives. This view may seem surprising, as faster reporting would not have saved the life of Caylee Anthony. Still, at least 41 policymakers referenced the critical need for speedy reporting of missing children, particularly during the first few initial hours following the disappearance.

When a child disappears, the first several hours are the most critical in ensuring they will be found alive. (Sen. Nozzolio, R-NY) (Daniels, 2011)

When a child goes missing or, in the worst-case scenario, a child dies, the early hours are critical to law enforcement. (Rep. Cook, R-CA) (“Assemblyman Cook to Lead Bipartisan ‘Caylee’s Law’ Effort,” 2011)

Making it a crime to not report a child missing within 24 hours gives that child a better chance at being found, or at the very least, the chance to get justice. (Rep. McKeon, D-NJ) (Fabrikant, 2012)

This image of the initial hours being critical to victim safety and/or crime solving is also in line with prior research on the rhetoric about the missing child problem (Best, 1987), and with the messages given by state and local police agencies (e.g., Carteret County Sheriff’s Office, 2012; Rocky Mount Police Department, 2012; Washington State Patrol, 2012), national-level government agencies (e.g., National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2012; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010), and even popular television shows (e.g., “The First 48,” “48 Hours Mystery”).¹²

This message that the law is needed to ensure faster reporting, which will help save children’s lives, is represented as simple common sense. Indeed, two policymakers specifically described the need for speedy reporting as a well-known fact in their rhetoric.

It is a well-established fact that when dealing with a missing child case every moment of delay weighs negatively in the life or death outcome. (Sen. Lanza, R-NY) (Seiler, 2011)

It is a well-known fact that authorities have the greatest chances of locating a missing child within the first 24 hours of disappearance. (Rep. Morrell, R-CA) (N. Miller, 2011)

The implication from these policymakers was that Caylee’s Law would help ensure the speedy reporting of missing children and save lives. By making this out to be a “fact,” or otherwise a common sense issue, these statements are much harder to question. This also represents both the need for the law, as well as a potential benefit.

Benefits

As shown above, discussions on the need for Caylee’s Law were intimately tied into discussing the potential benefits of the law. Sometimes these discussions took the form of metaphors for what the law would provide. Having claimed a need for action, political leaders also justified Caylee’s Law according to its utility in solving the problem at hand. For instance, at least 10 policymakers described Caylee’s Law as a potential “weapon” or “tool” for law enforcement and prosecutors.

It provides another arrow in the quiver of prosecutors. (Rep. Hagar, R-FL) (Axelbank, 2011)

It gives prosecutors another tool in their arsenal. (Rep. Henderson, D-KY) (Mayse, 2011)

It’s another tool for prosecutors, it’s another tool for police. (Rep. Linsky, D-MA) (MyFoxBoston, 2011)

Using the terminology of weapons and tools suggests that policymakers are providing the justice system with something tangible that will help to effectively fight crime and/or fix problems. Indeed, Rep. Mitchell (D-CA) explicitly described the passage of the bill as “answering the call to get new tools in the hands of law enforcement” (Andrews, 2011), thus implying that the law was being actively requested by law enforcement.

Policymakers also used rhetoric implying that Caylee’s Law would help to hold offenders accountable for their actions. At least 12 policymakers described holding parents and/or guardians accountable as a direct benefit of the law.

This bill is a reasonable and enforceable way to protect young children and hold accountable those parents and adults who fail to live up to their responsibilities. (Rep. Ugenti, R-AZ) (“Caylee’s Law Introduced in State House,” 2011)

The point of the bill is to hold parents accountable when they know their child is missing and in harm’s way. (Rep. Mitchell, D-CA) (“Caylee’s Law Gains Bipartisan Support, Passes Assembly Floor,” 2012)

With this proposal, we are protecting children and holding irresponsible parents and guardians accountable for not promptly reporting disappearances. (Sen. Kissel, R-CT) (“Sen. Kissel: CT Version of Caylee’s Law Passes Legislature,” 2012)

Related to accountability, policymakers also noted that a benefit of Caylee’s Law was that it could help punish offenders. At least 21 policymakers either directly or indirectly mentioned this idea in their rhetoric.

[Parents and guardians] have a responsibility to protect their children. This [law] will ensure it’s a punishable crime. (Rep. Caputo, D-NJ) (Grant, 2011)

With this measure, we have carefully crafted a comprehensive bill that would fix the shortcomings of state law to ensure that children are protected and perpetrators are appropriately punished. (Sen. Skelos, R-NY) (“Senate Introduces ‘Protect Our Children’ Act,” 2011)

Under this law, parents or guardians who lie to the police about the disappearance of a child will face real penalties. (Sen. Shortey R-OK) (“Oklahoma Senate Approves Caylee’s Law,” 2012)

Discussing the law as a way to hold individuals accountable and punish offenders helps tap the negative emotions the public felt about Casey Anthony “getting away” with a crime. Thus, although the sentiment may have originally been directed at Casey Anthony, policymakers discussed Caylee’s Law as a way to help punish future offenders who were like Casey Anthony.

God forbid we ever run into a mother like Casey Anthony again. If we do, that mother will be a felon. (Rep. Plakon, R-FL) (Kallestad, 2011)

Our laws shouldn’t allow bad actors like Casey Anthony to wait over a month to report a missing child. This bill will go after people like her but won’t incriminate well-meaning or distraught parents. (Rep. Cook, R-CA) (“Assemblyman Cook to Lead Bipartisan ‘Caylee’s Law’ Effort,” 2011)

This is a perfect example, in my opinion, where the mother got away with murder . . . And if we had a statute in place that would have allowed the state attorneys to charge her with that crime . . . she would have been found guilty on that charge and would be serving a period of time in jail. (Sen. Fasano, R-FL) (Kam, 2011)

Indeed, one policymaker specifically redirected the focus away from Casey Anthony and instead onto holding offenders accountable with the law, while also mentioning the idea of helping to protect children.

This isn’t about Casey Anthony anymore. It’s about making sure the law protects innocent children in Alabama and holds the adults charged with their care accountable for despicable, criminal conduct. (Sen. Taylor, R-AL) (Loftin, 2011)

As implied in Senator Taylor’s quote, the benefits of Caylee’s Law were discussed not only in terms of accountability and punishment, but also as a way to ensure the safety of children. This was one of the most prevalent themes in policymakers’ rhetoric. Over a third of the policymakers (47) mentioned protecting children as a driving factor (and benefit) in proposing such legislation.

This bill protects our children by requiring that the people involved tell the truth in these investigations. (Rep. Toohil, R-PA) (Light, 2012)

This bill focuses on protecting Hawaii’s keiki [children] by ensuring that greater accountability and responsibility be placed on parents and guardians to report a missing child in a timely manner. (Sen. Dela Cruz, D-HI) (“Senator Donovan M. Dela Cruz Introduces ‘Caylee’s Law,’” 2012)

I was motivated [to propose Caylee’s Law] by the protection of children. Nothing is more important to me as a legislator. (Sen. Farnese, D-FL) (Cato, 2011)

In addition, at least 17 of these policymakers used rhetoric that described the law as helping to keep children out of danger and/or away from harm, particularly as it relates to instances that are similar to the Casey Anthony case.

The main thing here is the safety of the child. We want to make sure we get that child out of the harm’s way as soon as we can immediately. (Rep. Mizuno, D-HI) (“Hawaii Lawmaker to Introduce ‘Caylee’s Law,’” 2011)

My hope is that this legislation can prevent similar tragedies from occurring in Oklahoma, and bring those who would harm children to justice. (Sen. Shorey, R-OK) (“Oklahoma Senate Approves Caylee’s Law,” 2012)

Our hope is that we can prevent similar occurrences and bring justice to those who would harm children. (Sen. Treat, R-OK) (OKSenate.gov, 2011)

A related way that policymakers indicated the law would ensure child safety was through deterring potential offenders. The 11 policymakers that mentioned deterrence used terms such as “warn,” “think twice,” and “discourage” in their rhetoric.

If there are laws like this, people like that mother will think twice about concealing the death of a child or waiting 30 days before they report it. (Sen. Farnesse, D-PA) (Owens, 2011)

[The Law] is narrowly tailored to provide adequate deterrence to direct caregivers from acts of criminal neglect. (Rep. Pak, R-GA) (“Rep. Co-Sponsors Caylee Anthony Law in Georgia,” 2012)

This law will discourage behavior like that seen in the case of Casey Anthony. (Sen. Harris, R-TX) (Webb, 2011)

In discussing this issue, at least four policymakers made the case that even if only one child’s life was saved, it would be enough to justify passing Caylee’s Law.

If something like this would protect one child, that one child is all we need to make this bill worthwhile. (Rep. Carpino, R-CT) (Fenster, 2012)

Even if it results in the saving of one young life, our efforts will be time well spent. (Rep. Simmons, R-PA) (States News Service, 2012)

In the process [of passing this bill], we may end up saving a life and that makes this effort more than worthwhile. (Rep. Shipley R-TN) (House Republican Caucus, 2011)

Indeed, Rep. Shipley (R-TN) went further by posing an oddly worded rhetorical question to the public, asking, “What price the life of a child?” (Hayes, 2012). Clearly the implied answer is that every child’s life is priceless, and no cost should be spared when working to protect children’s lives.

This “priceless” rhetoric supports Zelizer’s (1994) findings regarding the “sacralization” of children’s lives across various dimensions of American society during the 20th century (see also Pfohl, 1977).¹³ It also supports Best’s (1987) findings that policymakers use the “warrant” of saving children’s lives to justify taking action (see also Toulmin, 1958). In short, prior social movements had resulted in children becoming seen as idealized, priceless victims, and as a result, public concern with protecting children from harm dramatically increased. This, in turn, provided a way for current policymakers to describe the implicit value of Caylee’s Law.

Problems

Similar to the findings of Filler (2001), potential problems with the law were rarely discussed by policymakers. In fact, only five policymakers voiced any hesitations about supporting such a quickly proposed law:

I just feel that it’s a knee-jerk reaction to rush out to judgment and say we need to get a law in place. Instead maybe what we ought to do is really encourage parents to do the right thing and be good parents. (Rep. Barickman, R-IL) (WJBC Staff, 2011)

It may be that there is a gap in our law. To fail to report a death and thereby compromise an investigation, should that just be a misdemeanor? I’m not so sure . . . There’s an argument that can be made for it but it can’t be made in haste. (Rep. Kagan, D-CO) (Rose, 2011)

But we have to also be careful going forward to make sure [the law] passes the common-sense test. (Sen. Perkins, R-WY) (T. Brown, 2011)

However, how policymakers discussed this issue is important. That is, when policymakers did acknowledge potential problems with the proposed law, it was usually discussed in a way that minimized or sidestepped the actual concerns.

For example, and surprisingly, three policymakers explicitly acknowledged that the law would likely not deter anyone or save a child’s life. In fact, one of these policymakers acknowledged this idea right before noting that saving even a single life would justify Caylee’s Law.

I do not think this will prevent a child from being murdered . . . but I do think it will provide another tool to prosecutors. If its passage saves one life, everyone in this room will have done the job they’re intended to do. (Rep. Tamburello, R-NH) (Bradley, 2012)

As implied in Rep. Tamburello’s quote, rather than using this admission of ineffectiveness as a means to dismiss the law, policymakers instead focused attention back to the tangible benefits that the justice system would experience.

It probably won’t be a deterrent to crime, but at least it’s something the prosecutors can charge someone with who’s violated the law. (Rep. Wesselhoft, R-OK) (Wilson, 2011)

By first admitting that the law may not save any lives, policymakers are then free to redirect attention to the benefits the law is expected to have, effectively sidestepping the earlier admission of ineffectiveness.

In addition, at least 22 policymakers proactively address these concerns by indicating that they either acted “carefully” or “deliberately” in considering proposed changes to the law, or that the law was a reasonable and sound policy decision.

This legislation is a responsible solution to make sure the safety of our children is of the utmost importance not only to our families but to law enforcement as well. (Rep. Dorman, D-OK) (OKSenate.gov, 2012)

We intend to work on crafting well-vetted legislation that reasonably, clearly and without question defines who is liable and when the liability period begins to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of this law. (Joint Op-Ed from Rep. Bettencourt, R-NH, Rep. Tholl, R-NH, and Rep. Renzullo, R-NH) (Bettencourt, Tholl, & Renzullo, 2011)

This type of rhetoric serves as a proactive defense against accusations that Caylee’s Law proposals are knee-jerk responses, and provides an assurance that the resulting law will be a reasonable and useful policy. As such, concerns with the law were not only fairly limited but were typically mentioned only as a vehicle to help describe either the benefits of the law or the careful and measured consideration that policymakers were devoting to crafting the law.

Labeling

In discussing Caylee’s Law, some policymakers used labels to participate in the “ritual destruction” of Casey Anthony (see Garfinkel, 1956). For instance, eight policymakers used rhetoric that negatively labeled Casey Anthony or her actions.

Casey’s actions for the month after her daughter’s disappearance are reprehensible and show extreme signs of negligence. (Sen. Greenstein, D-NJ) (States News Service, 2011b)

Casey Anthony broke new ground in brazenness. (Rep. Plakon, R-FL) (Kallestad, 2011)

[Caylee’s Law] will put an end to the kind of irresponsible and outrageous behavior we observed with Caylee’s mother. (Rep. Hagar, R-FL) (Torres, 2011)

These types of labels serve to place Casey Anthony outside of the accepted social order. As Garfinkel (1956) suggested, this serves to have the denounced be “ritually separated from a place in the legitimate order . . . be placed ‘outside,’ . . . made ‘strange’” (p. 423). In other words, this rhetoric labels Casey Anthony as a deviant outsider (Becker, 1997; see also Goffman, 1986).

The negative labeling of Casey and her actions not only serve to degrade her status in society, they also serve to identify the boundaries of what society considers as acceptable behavior. As noted by Erikson (1966), when a community censures a deviant act (and actor) with a formal ceremony, it “sharpens the authority of the violated norm, and restates where the boundaries of the group are located” (p. 13). Thus, when policymakers label the actions of Casey Anthony as “negligence,” “brazen,” and “irresponsible,” they are defining what is considered unacceptable and deviant behavior. By proposing to expand criminal law to criminalize a parent’s failure to report a child missing, policymakers not only tapped into public fears but also appealed to the desire to publicly denounce and treat repugnant and antisocial behavior as “criminal” (see also Simon, 2000). At the same time, policymakers were also helping to identify actions that, in contrast, are acceptable to society. In this case, those acceptable actions include reporting missing children in a timely manner to law enforcement.

In some cases, policymakers were explicit in what society expected from parents and guardians. That is, policymakers clearly defined what was considered acceptable behavior in society. At least nine policymakers mentioned or alluded to such societal expectations for parents.

I don’t think we can prevent irresponsible parenting, but we can certainly put in place penalties for parents that fail in the most basic fundamental responsibility to safeguard a child. (Rep. Hagar, R-FL) (Associated Press, 2011b)

[My] bill will say that if you have a small child under the age of 13, you must report that child missing. If you are a parent or guardian, to do anything different would be outrageous. (Sen. Jones, R-MI) (“Michigan Responds to Caylee Anthony Case,” 2011)

It is unconscionable that anyone would wait 31 days to report the disappearance of a child, and we are acting to make sure a similar case does not happen here in Michigan. (Sen. Rocca, R-MI) (J. Bowen, 2011)

The use of labeling by policymakers extended beyond just Casey Anthony and her actions. Policymakers also used specific language to help label or otherwise identify themselves in a certain ways. For instance, one of the more prominent themes in the data was the use of language to identify the speaker as a member of the local community. As an example, at least 23 policymakers referred to “our children” in their rhetoric, which helps to indicate the speaker is part of a collective effort by society to protect all children, rather than it being the duty of the individual parent or guardian.

I stand with hundreds of my constituents and the concerned citizens who contacted me to support a measure to further safeguard our children and our communities. (Rep. Nybo, R-IL) (Illinois State House Republican Staff, 2011)

It’s an important bill borne out of tremendous constituent outpouring to fix Michigan law and better protect our children. (Sen. Casperson, R-MI) (“‘Caylee’s Law’ Approved by MI Senate Panel,” 2011)

While justice failed to be served for Caylee in Florida, we must not allow that to happen to any of our children in New Jersey. (Rep. DiCicco, R-NJ) (DiCicco, 2011)

In one of the more direct instances of this, in an op-ed written by three New Hampshire Republican Representatives, potential criticism of the law was downplayed by the use of folksy sayings:

Granite Staters should trust the Yankee common sense of the New Hampshire Legislature to provide a competent, well-vetted law necessary to protect and give justice to our children. (Joint Op-Ed from Rep. Bettencourt, R-NH, Rep. Tholl, R-NH, and Rep. Renzullo, R-NH) (Bettencourt et al., 2011)

Similarly, an Ohio Democrat Senator referred to the local geography to help link both herself and her constituents to Caylee Anthony.

Her family’s connection to the Mahoning Valley made it feel even more personal to me and many of my constituents. (Sen. Cafaro, D-OH) (Parks, 2011)

The use of phrases such as “Granite Staters,” “Yankee common sense,” and “Mahoning Valley” help identify the policymaker as one of the “locals.”

In using labels to identify similarities to the rest of the community, speakers also referred to their relationships with their own families. For eight policymakers, this took the form of specifically mentioning they were a parent or grandparent.

As a mother and grandmother, it breaks my heart to think that some parents knowingly jeopardize their children’s safety. Families have a very special duty to the members of their family. (Rep. Johnson, D-CT) (Smith, 2011)

As a parent and grandparent, how anyone could fail to report a missing child is beyond me. (Sen. Jones, R-MI) (States News Service, 2011a)

As a dad, I can’t imagine a parent not reporting a missing child. (Sen. Kissel, R-CT) (“Sen. Kissel: CT Version of Caylee’s Law Passes Legislature,” 2012)

By referring to themselves in this way, it helps signal that their experiences and concerns were similar to those of other parents in the community, and thus allows them to speak on behalf of parents (Garfinkel, 1956). This also served as proof of their interest and investment in proposing or supporting Caylee’s Law, not as politicians, but rather as concerned parents.

Discussion

Political rhetoric surrounding both the death of Caylee Anthony and the need to enact legislation penalizing the failure of parents to report their children missing contained a variety of interconnected themes. This political rhetoric followed patterns of claims-making by framing the need for action, proposing and justifying solutions to the problem via legislation, and using labeling to reaffirm and connect with underlying norms and values. This pattern is common in political rhetoric and has precedent in other cases involving children and child abuse (Best, 1990; Filler, 2001).

Unlike many named laws that tap into fears about predatory strangers (Lyons & Scheingold, 2000; Scheingold, 1984), discussions about Caylee’s Law were unique in that they focused on addressing parental negligence, tapping into outrage over the behavior of Casey Anthony. Indeed, rather than focusing on strangers and fear, much of the rhetoric focused instead on protecting future child victims and punishing potential offenders. This also helped tap into the rage that people feel about infanticide and other “associated evils” (see Best, 1987; Oberman, 1996; Spinelli, 2005), negating the need to focus on “stranger danger” as the driver for proposed policy changes.

The death of Caylee Anthony and the prosecution of her mother is a clear example of a triggering event. According to McGarrell and Castellano’s (1991) integrative conflict model of criminal law formation, triggering events precipitate political action on issues that fundamentally exemplify public fears (however much those fears are stoked by, or are conflated with, political, advocate, and media messages; E. K. Brown, 2012; McGarrell & Castellano, 1991). In the case of Caylee’s Law, political rhetoric focused, in part, on demonizing and degrading the status of Casey Anthony. This form of rhetoric taps into a labeling theory perspective, particularly one involving status degradation ceremonies (Garfinkel, 1956).

Harold Garfinkel (1956) noted that degradation ceremonies were used for the “ritual destruction” of the person being denounced. The purpose of the ceremony is to change how society views an individual, specifically by casting them in a negative light.

This is accomplished through a number of steps (Garfinkel, 1956): The event and perpetrator are made out as abnormal and clearly undesirable. The denouncer is made out as a public figure that is similar to the community’s members, is acting on their behalf and on behalf of the values of the community, and is in a position to do so. The denouncer makes both themselves and community members feel distanced from the perpetrator. Finally, a “successful” degradation ceremony results in the person and the event being thought of in a negative light.

While Garfinkel (1956) was originally referring to ceremonies involving the courtroom or hearing itself, through the use of negative labels in their rhetoric, policymakers used the discussion of Caylee’s Law as a de facto status degradation ceremony.¹⁴ That is, policymakers used rhetoric that essentially transformed Casey Anthony’s identity from one of a “mother” into that of a “monster,” seen as being outside of the accepted social order.¹⁵ Policymakers contrasted Casey’s actions with the actions of “responsible” parents and guardians to show that they clearly differed from these societal expectations. At the same time, policymakers also used self-labeling techniques as a way to make themselves out to be similar to community members, and in a position to act on behalf of society’s values and interests in protecting children. By distancing both themselves and community members from Casey Anthony and her actions, it seems that policymakers were attempting a form of status degradation ceremony through their rhetoric, effectively stigmatizing Casey Anthony (see Goffman, 1986).¹⁶

Although the negative labeling of Casey Anthony was an important theme, perhaps more important was policymakers’ use of rhetoric to help promote the passage of Caylee’s Law. That is, it was not enough to simply label Casey as a deviant or an outsider; rather, policymakers transferred the focus from negative labels onto the need for policy changes (and thus the need for the actions of policymakers).¹⁷ As such, policymakers used the status degradation ceremony as a vehicle for claims-making, to build support for Caylee’s Law through the vilification of Casey Anthony and her actions, while discussing the need for, and benefits of, the proposed law.¹⁸

Limitations

One limitation of this study concerns the collection of policymaker quotes. That is, it is possible that some quotes covered by the media were unable to be discovered due to being located behind a newspaper’s paywall (and not otherwise available in the LexisNexis Academic database). Furthermore, it may be that only certain parts of a policymaker’s longer, in-person speech was covered in the media, and thus the unreported parts would not have been collected by our search process. As such, the data in this study do not necessarily represent every quote uttered by a policymaker on this issue, but rather should be considered in light of the media filtering process that likely is biased toward reporting more dramatic quotes. When a policymaker issued a press release on their (or their party’s) website, or wrote an op-ed published in a local paper, this would be essentially bypassing the media filter to talk directly to the public.

Another limitation concerns the types of policymakers considered. That is, only state-level policymakers were included in the analysis (in addition to a single U.S. Representative). Thus, quotes from other policymakers such as governors, prosecutors, police chiefs, or judges were not included in the analysis. These results, therefore, may not necessarily generalize to other kinds of elected or appointed officials without direct legislative power. Indeed, given the selection of policymakers included in the analysis was not a random sample from the larger population of policymakers, it is unclear how well these results would generalize to all state-level policymakers. Finally, the qualitative coding process employed by this study is an inherently subjective approach. While efforts were made to code in as neutral and comprehensive a manner as possible, it is possible that another set of researchers would code the same data in a different way, possibly influencing results and interpretations.

Conclusion

The death of Caylee Anthony was a heinous tragedy, and the resulting trial of Casey Anthony captured the attention of the media, the public, and policymakers around the nation. It also provided the triggering event needed to promote the passage of Caylee’s Law, and allowed policymakers to address the public by using specific messages in their rhetoric. These messages included discussions of the need for Caylee’s Law and its potential benefits, as well as proactively addressing potential concerns with the law. In addition, policymakers used their rhetoric to label Casey Anthony, her actions, as well as themselves in ways that helped promote support for the proposed law. The driving message behind most of the various themes in policymakers’ rhetoric was that Caylee’s Law was an important piece of legislation that needed to be passed to help protect children and punish offenders.

Unlike the development of many other named laws (e.g., Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law), which focus on the threat of victimization by strangers, Caylee’s Law provided an opportunity to examine the rhetoric following a high-profile case involving accusations of family violence. Policymakers’ rhetoric on Caylee’s Law exemplified the tendency to mobilize political action around “triggering events” through claims-making, to justify new penal legislation on the basis of worst case scenarios and public fears, and to demonize the accused in ways that reaffirm social solidarity in the face of heinous crimes. While the findings of Filler (2001) provided an important backdrop, the results of this study show both the similarities and the differences in how policymakers use rhetoric to promote “child safety” legislation when the use of “stranger danger” rhetoric is unavailable. Indeed, this study has found that policymakers used a variety of interconnected techniques from both the claims-making and the labeling domains to promote their policy agenda with the public.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs. Lisa Broidy, Christopher Dum, Jamie Fader, Wayne Santoro, Rebecca Stone, and multiple anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Kelly M. Socia is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. His research interests include offender reentry and recidivism, registered sex offenders, public policymaking, geographic information systems, and spatial analyses. He received his PhD in criminal justice from the School of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany, State University of New York, in 2011.

Elizabeth K. Brown is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. Her research on penal politics and policy, public opinion, and state-level criminal justice issues has been published in Punishment & Society, Albany Law Review, Sociology Compass, and Criminal Justice Policy Review. She received her PhD in criminal justice from the School of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany, State University of New York, in 2009.

References

Andrews

(2011). Assemblymember Mitchell introduces “Caylee’s Law” [Press release]. Retrieved from http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/news/press-releases/2011-07-18-assemblymember-mitchell-introduces-caylees-law

Angus Reid Public Opinion. (2011). Americans want to see “Caylee’s Law” implemented in their state, p. 6. Retrieved from http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011.07.19_Casey_USA.pdf

Anthony Verdict Sparks “Caylee’s Law” Proposal in Florida. (2011, July 8). The Manila Bulletin. Retrieved June 3, 2012 from www.mb.com.ph/articles/325928/anthony-verdict-sparks-caylees-law-proposal-florida

Arbogast

(2011, July 14). Rep. DePasquale Receives Dozens of Emails on Caylee’s Law. WPMT-TV. Retrived from http://www.fox43.com/news/wpmt-pa-caylees-law,0,7226070.story

Assemblyman Cook to Lead Bipartisan “Caylee’s Law” Effort. (2011, July 14). California State Assembly Republican Caucus. Retrieved from http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/?p=media&sid=194&id=11224

Associated Press. (2011a, July 8). Casey Anthony case fuels push in states for “Caylee’s Law.” FoxNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/anthony-case-fuels-caylees-law-proposals-in-state-capitals/

Associated Press. (2011b, December 26). States’ Efforts to enact “Caylee’s Laws” garner support, controversy. FoxNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/26/states-efforts-to-enact-caylees-laws-garner-support-controversy/

Associated Press. (2014, April 15). Many questions about mom accused in infant deaths. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/many-questions-about-mom-accused-infant-deaths

Axelbank

(2011). Caylee’s law proposed by a South Florida lawmaker. News Channel 5. Retrieved July 6, 2011 from http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/caylee’;s-law-proposed-by-a-south-florida-lawmaker-

10.

Baker

Robbins

Goldstein

(2011, July 13). Missing boy’s dismembered body found; Suspect says he panicked. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/boys-body-found-suspect-being-questioned/?ref=leibykletzky

11.

Bauer

(2012, January 11). Kean and Allen sponsored “Caylee’s Law” signed by Governor Christie [Press release]. Retrieved from http://senatenj.com/index.php/allen/kean-and-allen-sponsored-caylees-law-signed-by-governor-christie/10881

12.

Beckett

(1999). Making crime pay: Law and order in contemporary American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13.

Best

(1987). Rhetoric in claims-making: Constructing the missing children problem. Social Problems, 34, 101-121.

14.

Best

(1990). Threatened children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Best

(2009). Typification and social problem construction. In Best

(Ed.), Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems (2nd ed., pp. 3-10). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine de Gruyter.

16.

Bettencourt

D. J.

Tholl

Renzullo

(2011, July 31). “Caylee’s Law” to get full consideration next session. NashuaTelegraph.com. Retrieved from http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinionperspectives/927796-263/caylees-law-to-get-full-consideration-next.html

17.

Blumer

(1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19, 3-10.

18.

Bowen

G. A.

(2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12-23.

19.

Bowen

(2011, October 5). Momentum builds for “Caylee’s Law.” WAFB. Retrieved from http://www.wafb.com/story/15043873/momentum-builds-for-caylees-law

20.

Bradley

(2012, February 1). Law enforcement officials support “Caylee’s bill.” The Union Leader, p. 18.

21.

Brown

E. K.

(2011). Constructing the public will: How political actors in New York State construct, assess, and use public opinion in penal policy making. Punishment & Society, 13, 424-450. doi:10.1177/1462474511414779

22.

Brown

E. K.

(2012). Rethinking public opinion in penal policymaking: Recommendations for research. Sociology Compass, 6, 601-613. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00481.x

23.

Brown

K. M.

Keppel

R. D.

Weis

J. G.

Skeen

M. E.

(2006). Investigative case management for missing children homicides: Report II. Washington, DC: Washington State Attorney General’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

24.

Brown

(2011, August 28). “Caylee’s Law” gets Wyoming’s attention. Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, pp. A1. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

25.

Caplow

Simon

(1999). Understanding prison policy and population trends. Crime and Justice, 26, 63-120. doi:10.2307/1147684

26.

Carteret County Sheriff’s Office. (2012). Missing persons. Retrieved from http://www.carteretsheriff.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=136

27.

Cato

(2011, July 13). Caylee Anthony ripple hits state. Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

28.

“Caylee’s Law” Approved by MI Senate Panel. (2011, September 28). Newswire, Targeted News Service. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

29.

Caylee’s Law Gains Bipartisan Support, Passes Assembly Floor. (2012). [Press release]. Retrieved from http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/news/press-releases/2012-02-02-caylees-law-gains-bipartisan-support-passes-assembly-floor

30.

Caylee’s Law Introduced in State House. (2011, November 27). Explorer News. Retrieved from http://explorernews.com/news/article_60dae2be-1922-11e1-b4cb-001cc4c03286.html

31.

Change.org. (2012). Create Caylee’s Law. Retrieved from http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylee-s-law-3

32.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

33.

Cheit

R. E.

(2003). What hysteria? A systematic study of newspaper coverage of accused child molesters. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 607-623. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00108-X

34.

Corrigan

(2006). Making meaning of Megan’s Law. Law & Social Inquiry, 31, 267-312. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2006.00012.x

35.

Daniels

(2011, July 14). NY lawmakers considering “Caylee’s Law.” Fairport-East Rochester Post. Retrieved from www.fairport-erpost.com/latestnews/x920790956/NY-lawmakers-considering-Caylees-Law

36.

DiCicco

(2011, July 20). N.J. has cause to add “Caylee’s Law.” Retrieved from www.nj.com/gloucester/voices/index.ssf/2011/07/nj_has_cause_to_add_caylees_la.html

37.

Dum

C. P.

Fader

J. J.

(2013). “These are kids’ lives!”: Dilemmas and adaptations of juvenile aftercare workers. Justice Quarterly, 30, 784-810. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.628946

38.

Ericson

R. V.

Baranek

P. M.

Chan

J. B. L.

(1991). Representing Order: Crime, Law, and Justice in the New Media. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

39.

Erikson

K. T.

(1966). Wayward puritans. New York, NY: John Wiley.

40.

Fabrikant

(2012, January 10). “Caylee’s Law” by Wisniewski, Caputo, Wagner, Mainor, Mckeon, Prieto, Evans & Fuentes bolsters search for missing children. The Paramus Post. Retrieved from www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20120110173627692

41.

Fader

J. J.

Dum

C. P.

(2013). Doing time, filling time: Bureaucratic ritualism as a systemic barrier to youth reentry. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 889-907. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.03.001

42.

Fenster

(2012, March 20). Testimony to be heard Friday at Connecticut legislature on missing child bill. New Haven Register. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database

43.

Filler

D. M.

(2001). Making the case for Megan’s Law: A study in legislative rhetoric. Indiana Law Journal, 76, 315-366. doi:10.2139/ssrn.266119

44.

Finkelhor

Hotaling

G. T.

Sedlak

A. J.

(1992). The abduction of children by strangers and nonfamily members. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 226-243.

45.

Gamson

W. A.

Croteau

Hoynes

Sasson

(1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393. doi:10.2307/2083459

46.

Garfinkel

(1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420-424.

47.

Garland

(2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

48.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (7th ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

49.

Goffman

(1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Touchstone.

50.

Grant

(2011, July 25). Caputo Joins the “Caylee’s Law” frenzy. Belleville Times. Retrieved from www.northjersey.com/news/126116678_Caputo_joins_the__Caylee_s_Law__frenzy.html

51.

Green

D. A.

(2008). When children kill children: Penal populism and political culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

52.

Griffin

Miller

M. K.

(2008). Child abduction, AMBER alert, and crime control theater. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 159-176. doi:10.1177/0734016808316778

53.

Hawaii Lawmaker to Introduce “Caylee’s Law.” (2011). Retrieved May 29, 2011 from http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Hawaii-lawmaker-to-introduce-Caylees-Law/OFYyQTt1c0iCfPDmXIslXw.cspx?rss=3030

54.

Hayes

(2012, March 28). Shipley’s “Caylee Anthony Act” exiled to summer study committee. TimesNews.net. Retrieved from http://www.timesnews.net/article/9044475/shipley39s-39caylee-anthony-act39-exiled-to-summer-study-committee

55.

Herbst

(1998). Reading public opinion: How political actors view the Democratic process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

56.

House Republican Caucus. (2011, July 11). Rep. Shipley files “Caylee’s Law” legislation. Retrieved from http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyhill/2011/07/12/rep_shipley_files_caylees_law/

57.

Illinois State House Republican Staff. (2011, September 6). Rep. Nybo co-sponsors “Caylee’s Law.” Retrieved May 29, 2012 from nybo.ilhousegop.org/2011/09/rep-nybo-co-sponsors-”caylee’s-law”/

58.

Jasper

J. M.

(2001). Moral panics. In Smelser

N. J.

Baltes

P. B.

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 10029-10033). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

59.

Kaczor

(2012, January 12). Fla. bill inspired by Caylee Anthony clears panel. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

60.

Kallestad

(2011). States weigh “Caylee’s Law” in verdict aftermath. Boston Herald. Retrieved from http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view.bg?articleid=1350602

61.

Kam

(2011, September 20). “Caylee’s Law” proposal troubles some officials. Palm Beach Post, p. 1A.

62.

Kennedy

(2011, July 7). Florida senate ready to start work on a “Caylee’s Law” this fall. The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/florida-senate-ready-to-start-work-on-a-1590180.html

63.

Kitzinger

(2004). Framing abuse: Media influence and public understanding of sexual violence against children. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.

64.

Lacey

Luff

(2009). Qualitative data analysis. Sheffield, UK: The NIHR RDS for the East Midlands.

65.

Levenson

J. S.

(2006). Sex offender residence restrictions, Part I. Sex Offender Law Report, 7(3), 33, 46-47.

66.

Light

(2012, March 15). House backs Toohil’s version of Caylee’s Law. The Standard Speaker. Retrieved from http://standardspeaker.com/news/house-backs-toohil-s-version-of-caylee-s-law- 1.1285961

67.

Loftin

(2011, September 26). Senator Taylor proposes “Caylee’s Law” in Alabama [Press release]. Retrieved from www.prattvilleal.gov/news/senator-taylor-proposes-qcaylees-lawq-in-alabama.html

68.

Loseke

D. R.

(2003). Thinking about social problems: An introduction to constructionist perspectives (2nd ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

69.

Lyons

Scheingold

(2000). The politics of crime and punishment. Criminal Justice, 1(1), 103-148.

70.

Marion

N. E.

Oliver

W. M.

(2012). Going symbolic: Presidential use of symbolic rhetoric in crime control policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 716-734. doi:10.1177/0887403412461502

71.

Marion

N. E.

Oliver

W. M.

(2013). When the mayor speaks . . . Mayoral crime control rhetoric in the top U.S. cities: Symbolic or tangible? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(4), 473-491. doi:10.1177/0887403412446993

72.

Mayse

(2011). Legislators prefile “Caylee’s Law” in Kentucky. Messenger-Inquirer. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

73.

McGarrell

E. F.

Castellano

T. C.

(1991). An integrative conflict model of the criminal law formation process. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 28, 174-196. doi:10.1177/0022427891028002004

74.

Meyer

C. L.

Oberman

(2001). Mothers who kill their children: Understanding the acts of moms from Susan Smith to the “Prom Mom.” New York, NY: New York University Press.

75.

Michigan Responds to Caylee Anthony Case. (2011, July 11). WILX10. Retrieved from http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/Michigan_Responds_to_Caylee_Anthony_Case_125304553.html?ref=553

76.

Miller

L. L.

(2008). The perils of federalism: Race, poverty, and the politics of crime control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

77.

Miller

(2011). Assemblyman Mike Morrell brings Caylee’s Law to California [Press release]. Retrieved from http://arc.asm.ca.gov/inc/article.aspx?id=249095

78.

MyFoxBoston. (Producer). (2011, July 12). MA Rep. wants Caylee’s Law. Retrieved July 20, 2011 from http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/ma-rep-wants-caylees-law-20110711

79.

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2012). FAQ: Missing children. Retrieved from http://www.missingkids.com/Missing/FAQ

80.

Oberman

(1996). Mothers who kill: Coming to terms with modern American infanticide. American Criminal Law Review, 34, 1-110.

81.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2010). When your child is missing: A family survival guide (4th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

82.

Oklahoma Senate Approves Caylee’s Law. (2012, March 15). News9.com. Retrieved from www.newson6.com/story/17166237/oklahoma-senate-approves-cayl

83.

OKSenate.gov. (2011). Treat announces plans to file “Caylee’s Law” in 2012 session. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Senate. Retrieved from http://www.oksenate.gov/news/press_releases/press_releases_2011/pr20110707a.html

84.

OKSenate.gov. (2012). Senate committee advances Caylee’s Law. Oklahoma City, OK: Author. Retrieved from www.oksenate.gov/news/press_releases/press_releases_2012/pr20120222d.html

85.

Owens

(2011, July 20). Pa. senator introduces Caylee’s Law. abc27. Retrieved from http://www.abc27.com/story/15114059/pa-senator-introduces-caylees-law

86.

Parks

T. L.

(2011, August 15). Legislators’ reactions to Anthony trial not unexpected, according to local attorney. Akron Legal News. Retrieved from www.akronlegalnews.com/editorial/1229

87.

Pfohl

S. J.

(1977). The discovery of child abuse. Social Problems, 24, 310-323.

88.

Rep. Co-Sponsors Caylee Anthony Law in Georgia. (2012, February 16). The Brunswick News. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

89.

Riparbelli

(2011, July 7). Casey Anthony trial aftermath: “Caylee’s Law” drafted in 4 states. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-trial-aftermath-caylee-law-drafted-states/story?id=14020260#.UVxAQJOsh8E

90.

Roberts

J. C.

Stalans

L. J.

Indermaur

Hough

(2002). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

91.

Rocky Mount Police Department. (2012). Missing persons. Retrieved from http://www.rockymountnc.gov/police/missing.html

92.

Roderer

(2011, December 16). Sacco/Greenstein sponsored “Caylee’s Law” heads to governor. Targeted News Service. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

93.

Rose

(2011, July 12). “Caylee’s Law” may be introduced in Colorado. 9NEWS.com. Retrieved from http://archive.9news.com/news/article/207693/166/Caylees-Law-may-be-introduced-in-Colorado

94.

Scheingold

S. A.

(1984). The politics of law and order: Street crime and public policy. New York, NY: Longman.

95.

Seibold

(2002). The place of theory and the development of a theoretical framework in a qualitative study. Qualitative Research Journal, 2(3), 3-15.

96.

Seiler

(2011, July 12). Caylee’s Law to be offered. The Times Union, p. A3.

97.

Sen. Kissel: CT Version of Caylee’s Law Passes Legislature. (2012). States News Service. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

98.

Senate Introduces “Protect Our Children” Act. (2011, July 21). US State News. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

99.

Senator Donovan M. Dela Cruz Introduces “Caylee’s Law.” (2012, January 27). Retrieved from www.hawaiisenatemajority.com/2012/01/senator-donovan-m-dela-cruz-introduces-caylees-law/

100.

Simmons, Toohil Propose Tougher Penalties for Child Protection Laws. (2011, November 14). States News Service. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

101.

Simon

(2000). Megan’s Law: Crime and democracy in late modern America. Law & Social Inquiry, 25, 1111-1150. doi:10.2307/829126

102.

Simon

(2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

103.

Smith

(2011, July 19). Anthony acquittal may result in new state law. Norwich Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/crime/x920800123/Anthony-acquittal-may-result-in-new-state-law

104.

Socia

K. M.

Stamatel

J. P.

(2010). Assumptions and evidence behind sex offender laws: Registration, community notification, and residency restrictions. Sociology Compass, 4, 1-20. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00251.x

105.

Spinelli

M. G.

(2005). Infanticide: Contrasting views. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 8, 15-24. doi:10.1007/s00737-005-0067-y

106.

State House Hearing on “Caylee’s Law” Set for Wednesday. (2011, October 3). The MetroWest Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20111003/NEWS/310039374/0/SEARCH

107.

Statescape.com. (2011, October 1). 2011 session schedules. Retrieved from http://www.statescape.com/textarchive/sitecontent/Sessions_StateScape_2011.pdf

108.

States News Service. (2011a, July 26). Parents reporting missing children. States News Service. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

109.

States News Service. (2011b, November 21). Sacco/Greenstein sponsored “Caylee’s Law” advances in senate legislation: Would make failing to report a missing child in a timely manner a felony. States News Service. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

110.

States News Service. (2012, February 14). Simmons’ “Caylee’s Law” bill advances to house floor. States News Service. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

111.

Stockard

(2011, July 13). Ketron sponsors “Caylee Act” bill. The Daily News Journal. Retrieved July 20, 2011 from http://www.dnj.com/article/20110713/NEWS01/107130315

112.

Stone

D. A.

(1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 281-300. doi:10.2307/2151585

113.

Stone

D. A.

(2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

114.

Strauss

A. L.

(1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

115.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

J. M.

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

116.

Sutherland

E. H.

(1950). The sexual psychopath laws. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 40, 543-554. doi:10.2307/1137845

117.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748

118.

Tonry

(2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

119.

Tonry

(2007). Determinants of penal policies. Crime and Justice, 36, 1-48. doi:10.1086/518582

120.

Torres

J. A.

(2011, July 7). “Caylee’s Law” online petition builds interest after Anthony verdict. Florida Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-07-caylee-anthony-petition_n.htm

121.

Toulmin

S. E.

(1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

122.

Washington State Patrol. (2012). Missing persons unit: Help for parents. Retrieved from http://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/parents.htm

123.

Webb

(2011). Texas Senator Chris Harris announces intention to file Caylee’s Law. Austin, TX: The Office of State Senator Chris Harris.

124.

Wilson

(2011, July 8). States propose “Caylee’s Law” after Casey Anthony’s Acquittal. USA Today. Retrieved from thecelebritycafe.com/feature/states-propose-caylees-law-after-casey-anthonys-acquittal-07-08-2011

125.

WJBC Staff. (2011, July 18). Illinois residents call for “Caylee’s Law.” Retrieved from http://wjbc.com/illinois-residents-call-for-caylees-law-legislation/

126.

WKRN.com. (2011, July 12). Lawmakers continue drafting versions of Caylee Anthony Law. News 2 WKRN-TV. Retrieved from www.wkrn.com/story/15061265/2-tenn-lawmakers-file-caylee-anthony-law

127.

WVIR. (2011, July 26). Virginia crime commission considers “Caylee’s Law.” NBC29.com. Retrieved from www.nbc29.com/story/15143309/virginia-crime-commission-considers-caylees-law

128.

Zelizer

V. A.

(1994). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.