Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito retrail

[Silurian]

Many people in the UK do not like the extradition treaty with the US because the US does not have to present much evidence to a British court.

We have to rely on the US judicial system.

 

[uppi]

It's called double jeopardy. You cannot be criminally tried for the same crime twice. It's a fundamental tenet of our system and it shocks me that other countries do not have this. I consider any nation lacking this to be regressive and barbaric, at least as far as their legal system is concerned.

It is not double jeopardy as the rest of the world is concerned. Only the US have such an extremist view on the definition of double jeopardy. Pretty much everywhere else, the prosecution can appeal if gross misjustice has been carried out. And that is the way it should be.

 

[bhsup]

Many people in the UK do not like the extradition treaty with the US because the US does not have to present much evidence to a British court.

We have to rely on the US judicial system.

While I love the UK (I really do, you guys are our mother country,) that is a UK problem and not my concern. If you don't like it, work to get it changed.

It is not double jeopardy as the rest of the world is concerned. Only the US have such an extremist view on the definition of double jeopardy..

Replace extremist with enlightened and not barbaric above and you're on the right track.

 

[Silurian]

Knox appealed her conviction.

May be Jolly Roger etc could comment on this.

From CNN

And the extradition treaty's reference to double jeopardy may not be binding in some cases, he said. "In the United States, generally, when you appeal a conviction, you waive your double jeopardy rights, and we permit retrials of people who have had their convictions reversed, at least on procedural grounds," he said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/26/justice/knox-extradition

 

[Camikaze]

It's called double jeopardy. You cannot be criminally tried for the same crime twice. It's a fundamental tenet of our system and it shocks me that other countries do not have this. I consider any nation lacking this to be regressive and barbaric, at least as far as their legal system is concerned.

Firstly, my comment was specifically about retrials in a system that was describing as always going upwards. As Silurian's quote in the post above suggests, these are a pretty good idea when you face a procedural problem; if the judge in a lower court has given slightly erroneous advice to the jury in a fairly clear murder trial, leaving a higher court with the options of acquitting or dismissing the appeal is going to dispose that court to ignoring miscarriages of justice in cases where they think the person would've been convicted anyway. Retrials give them a middle option, greatly reducing the incentive to ignore or disregard procedural problems.

Secondly, I'm kinda with you on double jeopardy, though I don't think it's necessarily that clear cut. We have laws here like in the UK, where someone can be retried for a serious crime if new evidence surfaces that wasn't available before (e.g. DNA evidence in really old cases), or if the original trial was tainted (e.g. someone has been convicted of an offence in relation to the trial; so if the jury was bribed, there can be a retrial). These sorts of retrials only proceed with special leave from the highest criminal court in the state. Alongside this was an allowance for settled cases to make use of DNA evidence for another appeal, as well. Now, on the one hand, it makes sense that if it has become very clear that someone has committed a crime, but they were acquitted in the past because technology simply didn't allow for all the evidence to be known (as opposed to the police just stuffing up), or if they bribed the jury or the trial was tainted in any other way, they shouldn't necessarily be able to point to a double jeopardy principle that really isn't designed for their protection. But on the other hand, I agree that it's fairly dangerous to let the state try someone again (or keep hounding someone) when they've already been acquitted. I wouldn't quite say it's regressive and barbaric, though...

 

[dutchfire]

Yeah, that's my issue in case you haven't noticed. The very fact that they can appeal a innocent sentence is just galling. It's an embarrassment for Italy that such a thing can even be considered acceptable, as well as for any country that does it. They should be ashamed of themselves. It ranks right up there with "guilty until proven innocent" as far as I am concerned.

Yes, the American way doesn't lead to embarrasments, just ask Emmett Till about that.

 

[History_Buff]

Figures, f'ing California fed court. Probably that atrocious 9th circuit. No American should ever be subject to double jeopardy. Shameful that a man is in Mexican prison because of it.

This wouldn't be double jeopardy though. It's an appeal (or series of appeals I guess) based on the same original trial for the same crime (I think). Double Jeopardy would be charging her again, rather than appealing the new verdict.

 

[uppi]

Replace extremist with enlightened and not barbaric above and you're on the right track.

If you really want to talk about barbarism:
A country where the death penalty is still carried out has no business in calling any other justice system barbaric.

 

[Goodfella]

If you really want to talk about barbarism:
A country where the death penalty is still carried out has no business in calling any other justice system barbaric.

This is what my sarcastic post on the previous page was supposed to address. It's simply illogical to repudiate American criticisms of the Italian justice system on the sole basis that the American justice system has some flaws. If you had a location under your profile pic I'd be inclined to search for some injustice that has taken place in your country and hence invalidate your claims using your own logic. Granted, I'm not with VRWC in labeling Italy's justice system as "barbaric," I merely wish to make users more aware of their often doltish logic when it comes to this sort of thing. I agree, the death penalty sucks and I'm entirely for it being eliminated, but that's not to say that Italy hasn't had some major issues with its own justice system and these issues are worth criticizing without this idiotic tu quoque reasoning.

 

[uppi]

This is what my sarcastic post on the previous page was supposed to address. It's simply illogical to repudiate American criticisms of the Italian justice system on the sole basis that the American justice system has some flaws. If you had a location under your profile pic I'd be inclined to search for some injustice that has taken place in your country and hence invalidate your claims using your own logic. Granted, I'm not with VRWC in labeling Italy's justice system as "barbaric," I merely wish to make users more aware of their often doltish logic when it comes to this sort of thing. I agree, the death penalty sucks and I'm entirely for it being eliminated, but that's not to say that Italy hasn't had some major issues with its own justice system and these issues are worth criticizing without this idiotic tu quoque reasoning.

Oh, I agree that there are flaws in every justice system. But in here Italy's justice system is solely judged by the strangely warped standards of the American justice system. I wish Americans would eliminate the filth in their system before they claim to be the one true standard that everybody has to abide to be civilized.

 

[Mise]

"And you lynch negroes" is a perfectly valid argument in this case. Remember that uppi is saying that America has no business calling other nations's CJSs "barbaric", not that those other nations don't, in fact, have flaws. He's not saying that it is wrong to criticise aspects of Italian justice, just that using a term like "barbaric" is logically inconsistent coming from an American who, presumably, doesn't believe that the American justice system is also barbaric for still having the death penalty, secret trials, Guantanamo Bay, etc. If V doesn't also believe that those things are barbaric, then it's clear that V's definition of "barbaric" is flawed. Alternatively, if V thinks those things are barbaric, but that American justice as a whole is not barbaric, then he needs to account for why this one instance of perceived barbarism in the Italian CJS renders the entire Italian CJS barbaric, whereas the multiple examples of barbarism in the American CJS does not render the entire American CJS barbaric.

It's a perfectly valid argument. It's only "tu quoque" if uppi claims that the Italian justice system is beyond reproach or criticism as long as the American justice system also has barbaric elements, or that V's arguments are invalid solely because the American justice system has barbaric elements.

 

[dutchfire]

Seems like the Italians are wanting a penalty kick shootout since they didn't win in overtime.

Seems like the Americans were celebrating their victory when it was actually just half-time.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not calling the Italians Barbaric. I'm calling them incompetent. Or, at least, they have demonstrated incompetence in this case.

 

[dutchfire]

I'm not calling the Italians Barbaric. I'm calling them incompetent. Or, at least, they have demonstrated incompetence in this case.

That's exactly why there is an appeals process, to rectify possible incompetence.

 

[Mise]

"And you lynch negroes" is a perfectly valid argument in this case. Remember that uppi is saying that America has no business calling other nations's CJSs "barbaric", not that those other nations don't, in fact, have flaws. He's not saying that it is wrong to criticise aspects of Italian justice, just that using a term like "barbaric" is logically inconsistent coming from an American who, presumably, doesn't believe that the American justice system is also barbaric for still having the death penalty, secret trials, Guantanamo Bay, etc. If V doesn't also believe that those things are barbaric, then it's clear that V's definition of "barbaric" is flawed. Alternatively, if V thinks those things are barbaric, but that American justice as a whole is not barbaric, then he needs to account for why this one instance of perceived barbarism in the Italian CJS renders the entire Italian CJS barbaric, whereas the multiple examples of barbarism in the American CJS does not render the entire American CJS barbaric.

It's a perfectly valid argument. It's only "tu quoque" if uppi claims that the Italian justice system is beyond reproach or criticism as long as the American justice system also has barbaric elements, or that V's arguments are invalid solely because the American justice system has barbaric elements.

Actually V never called the entire Italian CJS barbaric, I misread it. Looks like he just meant its interpretation of double jeopardy.

/nevermind

 

[Goodfella]

Oh, I agree that there are flaws in every justice system. But in here Italy's justice system is solely judged by the strangely warped standards of the American justice system. I wish Americans would eliminate the filth in their system before they claim to be the one true standard that everybody has to abide to be civilized.

"And you lynch negroes" is a perfectly valid argument in this case. Remember that uppi is saying that America has no business calling other nations's CJSs "barbaric", not that those other nations don't, in fact, have flaws. He's not saying that it is wrong to criticise aspects of Italian justice, just that using a term like "barbaric" is logically inconsistent coming from an American who, presumably, doesn't believe that the American justice system is also barbaric for still having the death penalty, secret trials, Guantanamo Bay, etc. If V doesn't also believe that those things are barbaric, then it's clear that V's definition of "barbaric" is flawed. Alternatively, if V thinks those things are barbaric, but that American justice as a whole is not barbaric, then he needs to account for why this one instance of perceived barbarism in the Italian CJS renders the entire Italian CJS barbaric, whereas the multiple examples of barbarism in the American CJS does not render the entire American CJS barbaric.

It's a perfectly valid argument. It's only "tu quoque" if uppi claims that the Italian justice system is beyond reproach or criticism as long as the American justice system also has barbaric elements, or that V's arguments are invalid solely because the American justice system has barbaric elements.

Ok, I'm not judging the Italian system based on the US's "strangely warped standards," nor am I claiming the US system to be the golden standard. But I will claim that a country that interrogates a woman for 50 hours while ignoring her pleas for an attorney, slaps and insults her, then charges her for committing a crime while showing no DNA evidence and using heroin addicts as witnesses definitely has a justice system worth criticizing. Even the drug addicts in Baltimore or Memphis get better than that. Now I'm somehow in the position of defending the term "barbaric" when I never actually used it myself, but if I have to, I'll contend that this Italian system is more barbaric than what you see in the US as this case demonstrates.

 

[Camikaze]

heroin addicts as witnesses

You say that as if they shouldn't be.

 

[bhsup]

Actually V never called the entire Italian CJS barbaric, I misread it. Looks like he just meant its interpretation of double jeopardy.

/nevermind

Exactly.

 

[uppi]

But I will claim that a country that interrogates a woman for 50 hours while ignoring her pleas for an attorney, slaps and insults her [...] definitely has a justice system worth criticizing.

I totally agree. If you want to criticize the Italian justice system on those points, go ahead. I wouldn't even object to the term "barbaric" that much. But it weren't those points that were called barbaric, but the mere fact that the prosecution can appeal an acquittal verdict. This can only be claimed if one elevates the American justice system to a golden standard that every civilized country has to follow. It is this display of American arrogance that I object to.

 

[Goodfella]

But it weren't those points that were called barbaric, but the mere fact that the prosecution can appeal an acquittal verdict. This can only be claimed if one elevates the American justice system to a golden standard that every civilized country has to follow. It is this display of American arrogance that I object to.

Well that's because it clearly isn't the best way of doing things. To point this out isn't to say that the US system is the golden standard but merely to say that an alternative system (which doesn't necessarily have to resemble the US system in anyway) would be better. It's not a display of American arrogance; that's merely your interpretation. Basically, if I live in Iraq in the 1990s and I claim that the Rwandan genocide is barbaric, is my opinion invalidated because my country mistreats Kurds? No and to say so would be tu quoque.