“This Isn’t About Casey Anthony Anymore”

• Author: Kelly M. Socia,Elizabeth K. Brown
• Published date: 01 June 2016
• Date: 01 June 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403414551000
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2016, Vol. 27(4) 348 –377

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414551000

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

“This Isn’t About Casey

Anthony Anymore”: Political

Rhetoric and Caylee’s Law

Kelly M. Socia1 and Elizabeth K. Brown2

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

1University of Massachusetts, Lowell, USA

2University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kelly M. Socia, School of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts, HSSB Building,

Rm. 483, 113 Wilder Street, Lowell, MA 01854-3060, USA.

Email: Kelly_Socia@uml.edu

551000CJPXXX10.1177/0887403414551000Criminal Justice Policy ReviewSocia and Brown

research-article2014

Socia and Brown 349

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 daugh-

ter missing, prosecutors could not charge her with violating any existing law by wait-

ing 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 num-

ber 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 sup-

ported 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, pro-

posals 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.

While calls for new legislation following high-profile cases involving children as

victims, and White children especially, are common in contemporary penal policy-

making (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