Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito retrail

[dutchfire]

Well that's because it clearly isn't the best way of doing things.

No .

 

[Goodfella]

No .

Nice post. No need to elaborate. It's cool.

 

[dutchfire]

Well that's because it clearly isn't the best way of doing things.

Nice post. No need to elaborate. It's cool.

 

[Goodfella]

Nice post. No need to elaborate. It's cool.

Haha. I knew you'd say that. Yet plenty of reasons have been made as to why the system is flawed. You have a girl getting convicted of a crime to which there was no evidence that she committed and then (thank god) being acquitted by a higher court. But now she's being tried again despite the fact that she had already been acquitted. Is that really the best system? Oh, but I've seen no reasons as to why the system isn't flawed so, yeah, no need to elaborate. It's cool.

 

[dutchfire]

Oh, but I've seen no reasons as to why the system isn't flawed so, yeah, no need to elaborate.

Let me help you!

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

See, that wasn't that difficult, was it?

 

[Goodfella]

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

See, that wasn't that difficult, was it?

Yeah, maybe a murderer has gotten off from the double jeopardy clause, but it's seriously necessary. The potential of someone getting tried multiple times for the same crime is something clearly undesirable. While you bring up an issue from the civil rights movement, it's worth thinking about how many African Americans would have been tried again and again and again for the same crime had that constitutional protection not been in place.

 

[dutchfire]

Yeah, maybe a murderer has gotten off from the double jeopardy clause, but it's seriously necessary. The potential of someone getting tried multiple times for the same crime is something clearly undesirable. While you bring up an issue from the civil rights movement, it's worth thinking about how many African Americans would have been tried again and again and again for the same crime had that constitutional protection not been in place.

You're suggesting the Italian system allows the prosecution to charge someone again and again just because they want to. This is clearly not the case here, so your objections are not relevant.

 

[uppi]

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.

Let me spell this out for you:
The whole world: We allow appeals on acquittals.
America: We don't, and anything else is barbaric.

Arrogance if I have ever seen it.

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.

A more fitting analogy would be Iraq criticizing Rwanda for the barbaric practice of men being prohibited from marrying more than one wife.

 

[dutchfire]

Let me spell this out for you:
The whole world: We allow appeals on acquittals.
America: We don't, and anything else is barbaric.

Arrogance if I have ever seen it.

I'm waiting for a British poster to come in and claim the the Italian justice system is barbaric because the judges don't wear wigs.

 

[Goodfella]

You're suggesting the Italian system allows the prosecution to charge someone again and again just because they want to. This is clearly not the case here, so your objections are not relevant.

Ok, you brought up Emmet Till as an example of when double jeopardy isn't a good thing and I countered by pointing out that double jeopardy protections prevent tremendous abuse. Now you're saying that this isn't relevant because it doesn't pertain to Italy. But you're the one who made the comparison in the first place. Anyway, I'll ignore the "just because they want to" red herring. By saying "just because they want to" you're putting me in the position of defending Knox's trial as being the whim of some judge. This isn't my argument so I'll ignore your fallacy. Also, you're still not refuting the necessity of double jeopardy as a principle (we need it to prevent woeful abuses in the justice system). And, if this isn't the case, then why is Amanda Knox being tried again despite already being acquitted? This is precisely why we need a double jeopardy protection; there's no evidence that she committed the crime and yet continues to be prosecuted long after her acquittal. That's a bad system and you know it. Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights has a double jeopardy protection. The US isn't alone in this regard and numerous other countries have it as well.

Edit: Wait for me to respond to Uppi. I'll edit it into this post.

Let me spell this out for you:
The whole world: We allow appeals on acquittals.
America: We don't, and anything else is barbaric.

For one, I never called it barbaric in the first place. That was VRWC. Next, you seem to make several false claims. First, you're under the impression that the whole world has appeals for acquittals. This isn't the case as numerous countries that don't allow appeals on acquittal: Australia, South Africa, France, Japan, South Korea, and the European Convention on Human Rights even discusses it. There are other countries as well. Many other countries appeal acquittals in only very specific circumstances which probably aren't even relevant to the Amanda Knox case.

Arrogance if I have ever seen it.

What's more arrogant is having a conclusion based on a false premise.

A more fitting analogy would be Iraq criticizing Rwanda for the barbaric practice of men being prohibited from marrying more than one wife.

No, the purpose of my analogy was to demonstrate your irrational and illogical use of tu quoque to ignore VRWC's criticisms. Since your analogy isn't about tu quoque, it's in no way more fitting. But I get your analogy, it's just silly and irrelevant. Double jeopardy isn't as black and white as polygamy. And for the last time, I never used the word barbaric. So drop that already unless you're talking to VRWC.

 

[uppi]

This isn't the case as numerous countries that don't allow appeals on acquittal: Australia, South Africa, France, Japan, South Korea, and the European Convention on Human Rights even discusses it. There are other countries as well. Many other countries appeal acquittals in only very specific circumstances which probably aren't even relevant to the Amanda Knox case.

We could go and discuss why your claim on those countries is wrong, one by one, but let's focus one the European Convention of Human Rights:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

Note the finally there. There is a double jeopardy protection in many countries, and rightfully so. However, according to the usual definition of double jeopardy this only applies once the verdict is final. But the verdict is final only after all appeals or similar procedures have been exhausted. So the prosecution can appeal, if it is not satisfied with the verdict. What it can not do, is to retrial someone who has been finally acquitted.

So as the verdict in the Amanda Knox case was not final, she does not yet enjoy the protection of the double jeopardy clause as defined by the Convention.

Similar reasoning applies for example in Japan and France.

What's more arrogant is having a conclusion based on a false premise.

I do not know every system in the world, so there might be exceptions, but generally double jeopardy is not understood as prohibiting appeals on acquittals. Thus I stand by the premise and the conclusion.

No, the purpose of my analogy was to demonstrate your irrational and illogical use of tu quoque to ignore VRWC's criticisms. Since your analogy isn't about tu quoque, it's in no way more fitting. But I get your analogy, it's just silly and irrelevant. Double jeopardy isn't as black and white as polygamy. And for the last time, I never used the word barbaric. So drop that already unless you're talking to VRWC.

My analogy was about as silly and irrelevant as yours. And about the use of the term barbaric:

I'll contend that this Italian system is more barbaric than what you see in the US as this case demonstrates

If you want to concede that the term "barbaric" was uncalled for, then we can stop having this discussion.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, let's just stop. You Euros are not going to acknowledge that your concept of double jeopardy is just horrible, so there is no point in continuing.

 

[dutchfire]

Ok, you brought up Emmet Till as an example of when double jeopardy isn't a good thing and I countered by pointing out that double jeopardy protections prevent tremendous abuse. Now you're saying that this isn't relevant because it doesn't pertain to Italy. But you're the one who made the comparison in the first place. Anyway, I'll ignore the "just because they want to" red herring. By saying "just because they want to" you're putting me in the position of defending Knox's trial as being the whim of some judge. This isn't my argument so I'll ignore your fallacy. Also, you're still not refuting the necessity of double jeopardy as a principle (we need it to prevent woeful abuses in the justice system). And, if this isn't the case, then why is Amanda Knox being tried again despite already being acquitted? This is precisely why we need a double jeopardy protection; there's no evidence that she committed the crime and yet continues to be prosecuted long after her acquittal. That's a bad system and you know it. Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights has a double jeopardy protection. The US isn't alone in this regard and numerous other countries have it as well.

Edit: Wait for me to respond to Uppi. I'll edit it into this post.



For one, I never called it barbaric in the first place. That was VRWC. Next, you seem to make several false claims. First, you're under the impression that the whole world has appeals for acquittals. This isn't the case as numerous countries that don't allow appeals on acquittal: Australia, South Africa, France, Japan, South Korea, and the European Convention on Human Rights even discusses it. There are other countries as well. Many other countries appeal acquittals in only very specific circumstances which probably aren't even relevant to the Amanda Knox case.


What's more arrogant is having a conclusion based on a false premise.


No, the purpose of my analogy was to demonstrate your irrational and illogical use of tu quoque to ignore VRWC's criticisms. Since your analogy isn't about tu quoque, it's in no way more fitting. But I get your analogy, it's just silly and irrelevant. Double jeopardy isn't as black and white as polygamy. And for the last time, I never used the word barbaric. So drop that already unless you're talking to VRWC.

:sigh: Well, let's explain it slowly then:

Allowing the prosecution to charge a person several times for the same crime is a Bad Thing (tm). Since if the prosecution wins just one case, the person is going to jail. Allowing this would therefore almost guarantee that everyone who is even slightly suspect will get convicted in one of the many case against him. Also, being able to prosecute again and again would allow the prosecution to keep someone in jail pending trial forever.
Let's call this Double Jeopardy A (BAD THING)

The founding fathers (pbut) (or the English dudes whose legal system you nicked, I'm not sure) recognized this problem and put in protection against this, which basically seems to be that once a case has hit a jury, it can not be prosecuted again.* Let's call this Double Jeopardy B (thing banned by US to prevent BAD THING)
*except special circumstances

The Italian system also protects against BAD THING, but it does allow an appeal by the prosecution. This is basically within the same procedure, so the BAD THING is no problem. The procedure in Italy to be acquited (or convicted) just takes longer and has some intermediate outcomes.

Now, what you and the rest of the US posters have been arguing i that because Italy doesn't have the specific protection used by the US to prevent BAD THING, it must necessarily have BAD THING. This is of course a ridiculous claim.

 

[Camikaze]

The different approaches to double jeopardy might have something to do with the US criminal justice system being so politicised. I can absolutely understand that with elected prosecutors, the possibility of a retrial really would be dangerous, and to that extent, the US system almost certainly does need restraint (or the US people certainly need protection from their system). But that doesn't mean that in systems were that politicisation doesn't occur, where prosecutors are not trying to please the public (or win votes) by hounding the unpopular, there is nearly the same need for the same protection or restraints.

This isn't the case as numerous countries that don't allow appeals on acquittal: Australia

As I mentioned earlier, in NSW (and AFAIK most Australian jurisdictions) a retrial can occur in certain circumstances following acquittal (i.e. when new evidence emerges, or when the original trial was tainted, both only for very serious offences, and only with special leave).

 

[Goodfella]

Now, what you and the rest of the US posters have been arguing i that because Italy doesn't have the specific protection used by the US to prevent BAD THING, it must necessarily have BAD THING. This is of course a ridiculous claim.

No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that Italy's method of preventing "BAD THING" isn't the best way of protecting people from "BAD THING" as the Amanda Knox case clearly demonstrates. She continues to face trial despite an acquittal and an extremely faulty conviction which is exactly the "BAD THING" that the justice system should be trying to prevent. A better system would be one that simply prohibits further trials once an acquittal is reached that way someone like Amanda Knox won't have to continue facing trial because some Italian prosecutors are playing politics with her.

We could go and discuss why your claim on those countries is wrong, one by one, but let's focus one the European Convention of Human Rights:
Note the finally there. There is a double jeopardy protection in many countries, and rightfully so. However, according to the usual definition of double jeopardy this only applies once the verdict is final. But the verdict is final only after all appeals or similar procedures have been exhausted. So the prosecution can appeal, if it is not satisfied with the verdict. What it can not do, is to retrial someone who has been finally acquitted.

So as the verdict in the Amanda Knox case was not final, she does not yet enjoy the protection of the double jeopardy clause as defined by the Convention.

Similar reasoning applies for example in Japan and France.

The use of the word "final" is just rooted in semantics and isn't a viable defense. It's the same way in the US, the only difference is that in the US, the final verdict takes place once a person has either been convicted, appealed, or acquitted. Double jeopardy is when you get tried for the same crime twice. If the "final verdict" may require a trial and an acquittal and a another trial and another acquittal until the prosecution is satisfied, this is still double jeopardy and Italy is still violating the European Convention of Human Rights.

I do not know every system in the world, so there might be exceptions, but generally double jeopardy is not understood as prohibiting appeals on acquittals. Thus I stand by the premise and the conclusion.

Yes it is. From wiki:

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

My analogy was about as silly and irrelevant as yours.

No, my analogy is about your tu quoque reasoning. Do you understand yet? But your analogy really isn't related to anything we've actually been talking about at all and hence it's irrelevant.
Now how about we go back to your tu quoque claim? You said that because the US system has the death penalty Americans (for some illogical reason) don't have the right to criticize the Italian system? Do you still hold these views or have you realized that it's a fallacy? Here's your post in case you forgot:

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.

And here's my analogy to remind you what I meant:

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.

If you want to concede that the term "barbaric" was uncalled for, then we can stop having this discussion.

Quote the whole thing would you?

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.

By saying that it's "more barbaric" I'm conceding barbarism in both systems (US has death penalty, Italy has double jeopardy issues) which isn't the same thing as VRWC's claim that the Italian system is barbaric. It was more of a way to say that there are flaws in both and not that one is inherently bad. And so you're "spelled out" version of the discussion of "America: We don't, and anything else is barbaric," is just wrong since that's not my viewpoint at all. So again, drop the barbaric point.

The different approaches to double jeopardy might have something to do with the US criminal justice system being so politicised. I can absolutely understand that with elected prosecutors, the possibility of a retrial really would be dangerous, and to that extent, the US system almost certainly does need restraint (or the US people certainly need protection from their system). But that doesn't mean that in systems were that politicisation doesn't occur, where prosecutors are not trying to please the public (or win votes) by hounding the unpopular, there is nearly the same need for the same protection or restraints.

Yeah but the potential for politicization is in both systems. This is demonstrated by the prosecution in the Knox case. The Italian public hates her and wants her behind bars and so the prosecutors are under pressure to make that happen even when there is no evidence to do so. So based on this instance, it seems as if the possibility of retrial is dangerous anywhere. It should at least be restrained to the degree you describe below.

As I mentioned earlier, in NSW (and AFAIK most Australian jurisdictions) a retrial can occur in certain circumstances following acquittal (i.e. when new evidence emerges, or when the original trial was tainted, both only for very serious offences, and only with special leave).

Well my use of Australia wasn't exactly to provide an example of an identical system to that of the US, but merely to show that other countries share the view that multiple trials after acquittal are dangerous and that in that respect, the US system is not alone.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah but the potential for politicization is in both systems. This is demonstrated by the prosecution in the Knox case. The Italian public hates her and wants her behind bars and so the prosecutors are under pressure to make that happen even when there is no evidence to do so. So based on this instance, it seems as if the possibility of retrial is dangerous anywhere. It should at least be restrained to the degree you describe below.

Are we just assuming that's what the retrial's about?

 

[Goodfella]

Are we just assuming that's what the retrial's about?

Not entirely.

 

[Silurian]

The Italian public hates her and wants her behind bars and so the prosecutors are under pressure to make that happen even when there is no evidence to do so.

Does the Italian public hate her, I do not know if they do other thay normal dislike of people accussed of killing people.

 

[Goodfella]

Does the Italian public hate her, I do not know if they do other thay normal dislike of people accussed of killing people.

No, the Italian media and public have spent tons of time on the issue, more so than probably any other murder case in Italy in recent years. And the media attention has been almost entirely negative. They call her "Foxy Knoxy" in both the UK and Italy and depict her as a pot smoking "slut." People have violated her privacy to publish her diaries and even at her trial prosecutors spoke demeaningly towards her. Much of the media attention makes Fox look fair and balanced. And whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? People (this happens in the US and many other countries as well) often just assume guilt and this assumption can amount to a significant political force. Again, note that there is pretty much no legitimate evidence that she committed the crime. There's not even a remotely comprehensible motive (seriously an orgy gone wrong?!).

 

[Camikaze]

The presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt are not mutually exclusive, because they refer to different things. You are presumed innocent for procedural/legal purposes, but if you're not presumed to be guilty, why the hell are you being prosecuted? Prosecutors should not be hounding those they don't think are guilty. At the very least, if the accused is presumed to be innocent in that non-procedural sense, their case should not proceed to trial. So even if the media is presuming guilt, that doesn't mean the trial is being conducted without a presumption of innocence.