Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito retrail

[History_Buff]

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.

The word legitimate is exactly what the appeals process is contesting. If some judicial error occurred, then the original trial wasn't legitimate at all.

 

[uppi]

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.

No, it isn't. If it were it would have been struck down long ago. There is a court to enforce that Convention, you know.

Yes it is. From wiki:

Legitimate here has the same meaning as finally in the Convention: When the whole process is finished. And as long as appeals can still be made the judgment is not necessarily legitimate or final. Thus an appeal is not double jeopardy.

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?

My point was that Italy was called barbaric by not following an American standard on a legal right, but instead followed a standard that is very common in Europe and the rest of the world. This statement can only be made, when one believes that the American system is the standard the rest of the world has to adhere to. I provided an example, where the American system is certainly not the standard civilized countries want to follow, so in general the American system can not be an universal standard for civilized countries. Otherwise we would have to call Italy a barbaric state because it does not have the death penalty, which is clearly absurd.

Criticizing Italy on a minor deviation from the American system would only make sense if the American system was perfect. The death penalty clearly show that it is not. Therefore it is not a matter of tu quoque, but a matter of what standard we consider perfect enough to judge other countries systems by. I would accept e.g. the European Convention of Human Rights. But I do not accept the American legal system.

 

[GoodGame]

A re-trial would make sense if there was new evidence or evidence that the previous trial was corrupt. Is there?

 

[dutchfire]

The use of the word "final" is just rooted in semantics and isn't a viable defense.

"A word can have different meanings. My meaning is obviously the correct one."

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.

claim A: You say 'injustice' in the Amanda Knox case is proof that the Italian system is flawed.
claim B: You say the Amanda Knox case is unjust because it uses the Italian system, which is flawed as was proven in A.

 

[Goodfella]

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.

I'm talking about the public's presumption of her guilt which may have negatively influenced the court's proceedings.

The word legitimate is exactly what the appeals process is contesting. If some judicial error occurred, then the original trial wasn't legitimate at all.

And that's the issue. If the prosecution or judicial system has the authority to declare a case invalid, it's still double jeopardy. The point of the double jeopardy protection is to a) force the prosecution to build the strongest case possible and then try the defendant and b)prevent the prosecution from simply doing a retrial if it wasn't satisfied with the verdict. And part b is what happened with the Amanda Knox trial.

No, it isn't. If it were it would have been struck down long ago. There is a court to enforce that Convention, you know.

Yeah, because everything always works perfectly.

Legitimate here has the same meaning as finally in the Convention: When the whole process is finished. And as long as appeals can still be made the judgment is not necessarily legitimate or final. Thus an appeal is not double jeopardy.

Well that's exactly what the problem is. If the final verdict requires appealing an acquittal there's still a double jeopardy violation in the process of reaching that final verdict.

My point was that Italy was called barbaric by not following an American standard on a legal right, but instead followed a standard that is very common in Europe and the rest of the world. This statement can only be made, when one believes that the American system is the standard the rest of the world has to adhere to. I provided an example, where the American system is certainly not the standard civilized countries want to follow, so in general the American system can not be an universal standard for civilized countries. Otherwise we would have to call Italy a barbaric state because it does not have the death penalty, which is clearly absurd.

One, the criticisms were not levied on the idea that the American system is perfect, but that the Italian system has a flaw. This flaw, so say several posters, is so drastic that the Italian system is barbaric. Though the term barbaric is far from accurate, the point is logically consistent. But no posters at any point were evaluating the Italian system in terms of the American one, but whether the American system, in one respect, had a more desirable aspect. You then bring up the death penalty following this reasoning:

American critic: there is a problem and the Italian system doesn't handle it well. The American system better handles it.
Uppi: Well the American system also has a flaw (the death penalty) so therefore I don't need to acknowledge your criticism of the Italian system and you should just shut up and go away.

Here it is again:

A country where the death penalty is still carried out has no business in calling any other justice system barbaric.

This is called tu quoque. It is also known as an appeal to hypocrisy and is a type of red herring fallacy. Later on we got into the debate about which system is better, but it was this initial reasoning that even caused me to get involved in the first place. I wanted to point this out because I see it way too often on this message board.

Criticizing Italy on a minor deviation from the American system would only make sense if the American system was perfect.

No, no, no. That's what I'm talking about. I don't need to show that the American system is perfect in order to criticize the Italian system. All I need to do is state my criticism and say what the alternative would be (in this case a double jeopardy protection).

The death penalty clearly show that it is not. Therefore it is not a matter of tu quoque, but a matter of what standard we consider perfect enough to judge other countries systems by. I would accept e.g. the European Convention of Human Rights. But I do not accept the American legal system.

No, because the death penalty isn't related to double jeopardy. It's a completely different aspect of the justice system. So all you're doing is saying that there's something wrong with the American justice system that no one here is arguing about or even supports really. By saying that there should be a double jeopardy protection, I'm not saying that we should have the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty. So it's still tu quoque because it's still a red herring and it's still a fallacy.

A re-trial would make sense if there was new evidence or evidence that the previous trial was corrupt. Is there?

I don't think it's entirely clear yet. Something about "procedural irregularities." But she shouldn't have ever been convicted in the first place. Zero DNA evidence linked her to the crime scene and the only witness was a heroin addict who thinks he saw her despite it being dark out. Plus tons of abuses on the side of the prosecution. They interrogated her without giving her access to an attorney and she claims she was hit and cursed at. There may have been some evidence, but the police inadvertently destroyed most of it.

"A word can have different meanings. My meaning is obviously the correct one."

That delineation isn't even close to being accurate. We're not talking about a word having different meanings, but how we're using the word. In this case, he's incorrectly making a distinction between what is double jeopardy and some arbitrary process of reaching the "final verdict." He's saying that double jeopardy, which is trying someone after that person's acquittal, isn't double jeopardy if at some unknown point in time the justice system will reach a "final verdict" in which case there will be no further trials. Basically, if the trial process involves double jeopardy, it's not actually double jeopardy because double jeopardy only occurs outside of some parameters of a legitimate court system. But just because that justice system's process of handling a case may involve some infinite number of retrials until this final verdict is reached, doesn't mean that double jeopardy is still taking place. He's basically just using a suppressed correlative fallacy.

claim A: You say 'injustice' in the Amanda Knox case is proof that the Italian system is flawed.
claim B: You say the Amanda Knox case is unjust because it uses the Italian system, which is flawed as was proven in A.

You're putting my conclusion before my warrant and thus making it circular by your own doing. Here's my actual reasoning:
The Amanda Knox case isn't flawed for the sole reason of being part of the Italian justice system, but because you have a girl being accused of a crime to which there was no evidence that she committed. You then have her being interrogated for 50 hours within several days without giving her an attorney and an outraged Italian public demanding justice be served. You have prosecutors and police officers speaking demeaningly towards her and even hitting her during the interrogation process. She then gets convicted (God knows how) but thankfully gets acquitted. However, the acquittal is then overturned and here we are again, prosecuting a girl for committing a crime to which there is no evidence that she committed. Thus, the Italian justice system is flawed and it should have a double jeopardy clause like that of the US constitution to mitigate this problem. There's no circular logic.

Anyway, you've never actually contested that the Amanda Knox trial is flawed (not the double jeopardy part, but the actual evidence of her having committed the crime). Do you agree with me in this regard?

 

[dutchfire]

Anyway, you've never actually contested that the Amanda Knox trial is flawed (not the double jeopardy part, but the actual evidence of her having committed the crime). Do you agree with me in this regard?

I dunno, I don't have access to all the information the court has (neither am I inclined to read all of it). There seem to have been some genuine ef-ups in the handling of the crime scene, which is plain amateurism on the part of the local Italian police. I'm not sure what to think about her allegations of prison abuse. I believe she's being prosecuted for slander about the allegations. She says A, the Italians say B, no way to be sure. In the end, a dead girl was found in her apartment and there doesn't seem to be any alternative explanation going round, the fact that she implicated an innocent guy of the crime (and was convicted for this) help there, but I don't think the Italians have beyond reasonable doubt proof. I reckon she'll be acquited in the end.

But I have no particular interest an sich, only in the implication of "barbarism" in systems that allow appeals that some of you have been throwing around.

That delineation isn't even close to being accurate. We're not talking about a word having different meanings, but how we're using the word. In this case, he's incorrectly making a distinction between what is double jeopardy and some arbitrary process of reaching the "final verdict." He's saying that double jeopardy, which is trying someone after that person's acquittal, isn't double jeopardy if at some unknown point in time the justice system will reach a "final verdict" in which case there will be no further trials. Basically, if the trial process involves double jeopardy, it's not actually double jeopardy because double jeopardy only occurs outside of some parameters of a legitimate court system. But just because that justice system's process of handling a case may involve some infinite number of retrials until this final verdict is reached, doesn't mean that double jeopardy is still taking place. He's basically just using a suppressed correlative fallacy.

This is not really the case though. It's not like the Italian system allows infinite retrails, it just allows prosecution and defence to appeal a case a finite amount of time, according to predetermined rules. The fear of arbitrary prosecution is not really grounded.

--
That's it for now, got to go, maybe I'll respond more thoroughly tomorrow.

 

[uppi]

Well that's exactly what the problem is. If the final verdict requires appealing an acquittal there's still a double jeopardy violation in the process of reaching that final verdict.

And there is your problem, the point you do not (want to) get: Your definition of double jeopardy is solely based on the American system and ignores the definition as generally understood elsewhere.

If your criticism of the Italian system was independent of the American system, then your points would be valid and any shortcomings of the American system would be irrelevant. As your point is based on the superiority of the American way of doing things, criticism of the American way of doing things is very relevant.

 

[Goodfella]

There seem to have been some genuine ef-ups in the handling of the crime scene, which is plain amateurism on the part of the local Italian police.

The ruling from the acquittal verdict noted that the presiding judge used the word "probably" 39 times, clearly indicating that she was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only witness who could place Knox at the scene was a heroin addict (also homeless but that's not really relevant). And apparently the motive was that Knox and Sollecito wanted to have an orgy with Kercher but Kercher refused. So they killed her. It's laughable. Knox also received intense scrutiny for her choice of under wear and her use of marijuana leading to the defense attempting to depict her as a slut. Totally sexist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/amanda-knox-trial-flawed-says-judge?INTCMP=SRCH

I'm not sure what to think about her allegations of prison abuse. I believe she's being prosecuted for slander about the allegations. She says A, the Italians say B, no way to be sure.

She was acquitted on those charges so her allegations are presumably true.

In the end, a dead girl was found in her apartment and there doesn't seem to be any alternative explanation going round,

No, Rudy Guede has already been convicted of the murder but for some mind boggling reason the prosecution still wants Knox behind bars. Guede's DNA was found all over Kercher's body, even inside it, and he fled to Germany just hours after Kercher was murdered.

But I have no particular interest an sich, only in the implication of "barbarism" in systems that allow appeals that some of you have been throwing around.

I have no interest in "barbarism" either. I can't believe you're still about this. But it's important that you have an interest in the case's flaws as it provides a prime example of why a double jeopardy clause should be necessary. The prosecution is basically charging someone with a laughable offense and for god knows why, it's not satisfied with the verdict and so it decided it wants to have another go.

This is not really the case though. It's not like the Italian system allows infinite retrails, it just allows prosecution and defence to appeal a case a finite amount of time, according to predetermined rules. The fear of arbitrary prosecution is not really grounded.

I was simply explaining his logic. Obviously infinite trials can't exist. But anyway, if he really wants to run a suppressed correlative fallacy and is really incapable of understanding is own illogic, I'll just go with it. In the end it really doesn't matter what you call it. What I'm saying is that once an acquittal takes place, the prosecution should not have the ability to have any more trials. I don't care whether this ambiguous "final verdict" has taken place or not. The final verdict should be that verdict that acquits the defendant and no further appeals should take place. Maybe the prosecution can appeal it in dire circumstances, like they just found a video of the defendant killing the victim, but most of the time, including the Knox trial, it should be prohibited.

Anyway, I noticed you dropped the circular logic argument. Do you accept that I wasn't using circular logic?

And there is your problem, the point you do not (want to) get: Your definition of double jeopardy is solely based on the American system and ignores the definition as generally understood elsewhere.

No, that's not what double jeopardy is understood to mean elsewhere. It's what you understand it to mean. Elsewhere, namely Italy, they just don't really care about it as much as they do in the US. So they allow double jeopardy trials to take place. The definition of double jeopardy that we've all agreed upon, is when someone gets tried after a verdict as already been reached. This is what is happening with Amanda Knox. Like I've said, you're now running what is called a suppressed correlative fallacy. You're defining one of two mutually exclusive events such that one contains the other. But fine, we can agree to have different definitions of double jeopardy if you really want. Ultimately what I'm arguing for, regardless of whatever you want to call it, is that the prosecution should not have the power to appeal an acquittal. And maybe in some very specific circumstances, such as the one Camikaze described in Australia, the appeal of acquittals can be permissible. But it's certainly not acceptable in Italy nor in the case of Amanda Knox.

If your criticism of the Italian system was independent of the American system, then your points would be valid and any shortcomings of the American system would be irrelevant. As your point is based on the superiority of the American way of doing things, criticism of the American way of doing things is very relevant.

No, no, no, no. That's not how it works. I don't care about the death penalty, I'm actually against it, and by arguing for the double jeopardy clause of the US constitution, which has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty, I am in no way advocating that Italy replicates the enitre US justice system and for you to give me that burden would be ridiculous and plainly illogical. Now if you want to levy a valid or relevant criticism, you should probably find problems with the double jeopardy protection in the US. Yes, I'm basically telling you how you could win this argument because you obviously don't get it. Now I advise that you drop the death penalty issue since there's no place for it in this discussion as I've just shown.

Anyway, like Dutchfire, you've never actually contested the notion that the Amanda Knox trial has been flawed. Do you concede this point?

 

[uppi]

No, that's not what double jeopardy is understood to mean elsewhere. It's what you understand it to mean. Elsewhere, namely Italy, they just don't really care about it as much as they do in the US. So they allow double jeopardy trials to take place. The definition of double jeopardy that we've all agreed upon, is when someone gets tried after a verdict as already been reached.

No, we haven't agreed on that. The Wikipedia definition disagrees with your definition, the European Convention on Human rights disagrees, the Italian, German, French, UK, Japanese, Canadian ... legal system disagrees.

The universally agreed definition is that someone gets tried after the final verdict has been reached. And this a small, but for this case very relevant distinction.

It is not that they don't care that much about double jeopardy, it is that this is not a case of double jeopardy.

No, no, no, no. That's not how it works. I don't care about the death penalty, I'm actually against it, and by arguing for the double jeopardy clause of the US constitution, which has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty, I am in no way advocating that Italy replicates the enitre US justice system and for you to give me that burden would be ridiculous and plainly illogical. Now if you want to levy a valid or relevant criticism, you should probably find problems with the double jeopardy protection in the US. Yes, I'm basically telling you how you could win this argument because you obviously don't get it. Now I advise that you drop the death penalty issue since there's no place for it in this discussion as I've just shown.

If you want to discuss double jeopardy itself, then yes the death penalty is irrelevant. But if an entire justice system is called barbaric (which was the starting point for this argument), because there are tiny differences to the US system there is an implicit conjecture that the US system is the golden standard that has to be followed. The death penalty is the counterargument for that.

As for why the US interpretation of the double jeopardy protection is problematic: It allows no action at all against a wrongful acquittal. As the defendant is allowed to appeal, there has to be just one flaw in the system, one racist jury, one corrupt judge, for the criminal to go free.

Consider the following example: A local judge is "convinced" by the local Mafia boss (we're talking about Italy after all) to acquit a henchman of murder. Maybe even murder of the previous judge who didn't let himself to be "convinced". Now he prosecution cannot do anything about it, and the murderer goes free and the Mafia boss is free to continue his reign of terror. If the was the possibility to appeal, the issue could be handed to a court outside the sphere of influence of that Mafia boss, where a fair trial for the defendant and the victims could be held.

Anyway, like Dutchfire, you've never actually contested the notion that the Amanda Knox trial has been flawed. Do you concede this point?

Sure. That certainly wasn't a commercial for Italian justice.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm talking about the public's presumption of her guilt which may have negatively influenced the court's proceedings.

But that's pretty much the same thing for every trial the public knows about, with a couple of exceptions here and there. The public should feel safe to presume that the prosecutor will not prosecute unless there's sufficient evidence. That hasn't got much to do with the legal presumption of innocence unless an impartial jury cannot be found.

 

[Goodfella]

No, we haven't agreed on that. The Wikipedia definition disagrees with your definition, the European Convention on Human rights disagrees, the Italian, German, French, UK, Japanese, Canadian ... legal system disagrees.

The universally agreed definition is that someone gets tried after the final verdict has been reached. And this a small, but for this case very relevant distinction.

It is not that they don't care that much about double jeopardy, it is that this is not a case of double jeopardy.



If you want to discuss double jeopardy itself, then yes the death penalty is irrelevant. But if an entire justice system is called barbaric (which was the starting point for this argument), because there are tiny differences to the US system there is an implicit conjecture that the US system is the golden standard that has to be followed. The death penalty is the counterargument for that.

As for why the US interpretation of the double jeopardy protection is problematic: It allows no action at all against a wrongful acquittal. As the defendant is allowed to appeal, there has to be just one flaw in the system, one racist jury, one corrupt judge, for the criminal to go free.

Consider the following example: A local judge is "convinced" by the local Mafia boss (we're talking about Italy after all) to acquit a henchman of murder. Maybe even murder of the previous judge who didn't let himself to be "convinced". Now he prosecution cannot do anything about it, and the murderer goes free and the Mafia boss is free to continue his reign of terror. If the was the possibility to appeal, the issue could be handed to a court outside the sphere of influence of that Mafia boss, where a fair trial for the defendant and the victims could be held.



Sure. That certainly wasn't a commercial for Italian justice.

Since this isn't going anywhere we'll just leave it at this.

 

[Silurian]

So now Knox will appeal again.

From BBC

Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend guilty of Kercher murder

A court in Italy has reinstated the guilty verdicts against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of UK student Meredith Kercher in 2007.
...


....
The judges ordered that damages should be paid by the pair to the family of Ms Kercher.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25941999

 

[woody60707]

What a joke. This whole "It was a satanic sex plot" is surreal. It would be funny if a persons life wasn't at stake.

 

[metatron]

It would be funny if a persons life wasn't at stake.

Right now on death row in the United States of Our Legal System is Better than Your Barbarian Nonsense:

59 citizens of Mexico
10 citizens of Cuba
8 citizens of Vietnam
8 citizens of El Salvador
6 citizens of Honduras
5 citizens of Cambodia
4 citizens of Jamaica
3 citizens of Colombia
3 citizens of the Bahamas
2 citizens of Canada
2 citizens of Iran
2 citizens of Trinidad
2 citizen of Guatemala
1 citizen of Spain
1 citizen of Tonga
1 citizen of Costa Rica
1 citizen of Laos
1 citizen of Nicaragua
1 citizen of Estonia
1 citizen of Egypt
1 citizen of Bangladesh
1 citizen of Haiti
1 citizen of Lebanon
1 citizen of Jordan
1 citizen of France
1 citizen of Russia
1 citizen of Argentina
1 citizen of China
1 citizen of the UK
1 citizen of Armenia
1 citizen of Ukraine
1 citizen of Serbia
1 citizen of Lithuania
1 citizen of Germany
1 citizen of the Philippines
​

Life's at stake. Literally.
That's about 141.
The number of those among them whose home nations consider capital punishment barbaric and antiquated shakes out to roughly 130.

How about you people just freakin deal with this Knox thing instead of trying to break your own navel-gazing records?

 

[cav scout]

Life's at stake. Literally.
That's about 141.
The number of those among them whose home nations consider capital punishment barbaric and antiquated shakes out to roughly 130.

How about you people just freakin deal with this Knox thing instead of trying to break your own navel-gazing records?

Seems to me that Woody was saying he disagreed with the guilty verdict for Amanda Knox, not the sentence.

So why are you bringing up these 141 people sentenced to death? Do you disagree with their verdicts or sentences?

 

[metatron]

Seems to me that Woody was saying he disagreed with the guilty verdict for Amanda Knox, not the sentence.

So why are you bringing up these 141 people sentenced to death? Do you disagree with their verdicts or sentences?

What i disagree with doesn't matter. The point is that their nations strongly disagree with an element of the US justice system.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Who wouldn't disagree with something as barbaric as capital punishment? Apparently not most Italians...

ROME (CNN) -- Rome's famous Coliseum, where doomed captives were once tortured and slaughtered for the amusement of the populace, is now becoming a symbol of modern-day Italy's virulent hatred of capital punishment.

Usually the postcard-pretty amphitheater with an ugly past is bathed in cold white lights during hours of darkness. But whenever a death sentence is commuted anywhere in the world, the city authorities switch the lights to gold in tribute.

Recently, Bermuda passed a law banning the death penalty. So on a cold rainy night, a small crowd gathered at the base of the Coliseum's crumbling porticos to hold a candlelight vigil under the golden glow.

Elizabetta Zanparutti explained why she and her fellow protesters were standing in freezing rain because of what was going on in a small island nation half a world away.

"I am not living only in Italy," Zanparutti said. "We are moving toward a global community and we should reach a common standard on certain principles, such as human rights."

The only "life at stake" in this particular instance was the victim's.

 

[woody60707]

What i disagree with doesn't matter. The point is that their nations strongly disagree with an element of the US justice system.

Sir, please make a thread about those people if you feel this way. But I would ask that you not derail this thread. I mean I can't for the life of me see how the death penalty has anything, remotely, to do with this case.

 

[BvBPL]

Seems to me that Woody was saying he disagreed with the guilty verdict for Amanda Knox, not the sentence.

So why are you bringing up these 141 people sentenced to death? Do you disagree with their verdicts or sentences?

Without getting into the specifics of individual cases or even into the death penalty, foreign nationals in US are regularly denied consular rights. Denying these rights is a naked violation of international law. If an American was denied consular right there would be outrage, but when the US denies the consular rights to foreign nationals it is just business as usual.

 

[Dralix]

You mean like this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Medellín