• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amanda Knox found guilty of murder again by Italian Court

DiAnna said:
The fact is that some European countries have NOT honored extradition treaties with America, and the world has not come to an end.
Click to expand...

Which countries and what cases?
 
PeteEU said:
What is funny here is Americans actually believe this bitch because she is pretty and has a good PR team.

I too followed the case pretty closely and can say I have serious doubts about her and the boyfriend. They acted very strangely after the murder and had inconsistent stories. Along with the evidence that was not tainted by incompetence.. like that the whole scene looked staged as a burglary.. and you can only conclude that either they did it or were heavily involved in the murder.

As for the trial being a sham trial and the Italian court system being inept and corrupt.. funny coming from the Americans.. who piss up and down on the law depending on how much money you have or where you are from. Amanda got consular help.. pity the US does not give that to people visiting the US..

Well I Amanda Knox wont be leaving the US for the rest of her life.. because step outside and an international arrest warrant will bring her back to Italy to serve her time.
Click to expand...
While I agree in principle with your comments, ie US justice system sucks and therefore we have no leg to stand on while attempting to ridicule other country's systems, it does seem kind of cruel and unusual for a system to not accept the not guilty verdict of a jury and then re-try her on the same charges, double jeopardy I think that's called. That seems wrong in any system. I imagine we have our own version of that perversion here. In either place, that would seem quite wrong. Took her to trial, she was found not guilty, iirc, and that should be the end of it, imo.
 
Higgins86 said:
Yep, if a European country were to block an extradition process like that the American government would not be happy.
Click to expand...

Europe blocks extradition routinely.
 
Andalublue said:
France ≠ Italy. I'm sure you knew.
Click to expand...

I was responding to PeteEU.... a notorious EU cheerleader and one whom I've debated the Roman Polanski affair with in the past. You know that to EU supporters there is no more difference between France and Italy than there is between Texas and Oklahoma to an American.

And yes of course I know that Italy and France are different countries, my father is from Italy.
 
TurtleDude said:
Amanda Knox found guilty of murder again by Italian court - CNN.com

apparently she was sentenced to 28.5 years

of course she isn't in Italy

I think the verdict is more of a condemnation of the laughably inept, corrupt and completely dysfunctional Italian justice system.

One former prosecutor doubts the USA would grant extradition given the double jeopardy argument


I followed this trial pretty closely and read numerous reviews. Based on what I learned, I would have "Rule 29'd" the case. (meaning grant the defense a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution case). The Prosecution was a joke in this matter
Click to expand...

Based on what new evidence? Or are they just allowed to keep trying her until they get the verdict they want? :roll: She should give them the big middle finger.
 
DiAnna said:
I understand the difference quite well, thanks. I also understand context, as in your original post. You are now backpedaling. :shrug:



And...? Yes, he fled before sentence was pronounced, and was not extradited back to the US by France, which is the entire basis for using the Polanski case as a rebuttal when some here toss out the old "America has to honor extradition treaties with European countries because if they don't, European countries won't honor extradition treaties with America". The fact is that some European countries have NOT honored extradition treaties with America, and the world has not come to an end. Duh.



You appear to be the one who is playing semantic games, and I am not the one who accused you of "having a burr up your butt". At any rate, my side of this conversation is over.
Click to expand...

1. I'm not backpedalling, and you clearly don't understand the difference or the context of my comments.

2. Had you been paying attention to the discussion before you decided to jump in and attack me, you would have seen that at no time did I say that Polanski was a rebuttal because I actually said that the US would not honour a request to extradite Knox and have given examples of other countries not agreeing to US requests, such as Canada who won't extradite a fugitive to the US if the death penalty is involved. I mentioned Polanski and then Snowden as examples of US requests not being honoured, so not to expect the US to honour any request.

3. I asked if you had some type of burr up your butt because your irrational out of the blue attack on me, falsely accusing me of "consistently claiming the American justice system sucks", when I wasn't discussing anything with you, indicated that you had a different agenda than the discussion taking place.

Finally, suits me fine if your side of this conversation is over - the only thing better would be if you hadn't tossed in your ignorant comments to begin with.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is one consideration. Italy if it was smart wouldn't demand extradition. Their justice system is a joke
Click to expand...

So is large parts of this country, ex: wisconsin, where last i heard, $3000 salary means "you can afford an attorney," so that many have to defend themselves in court.
 
Summerwind said:
While I agree in principle with your comments, ie US justice system sucks and therefore we have no leg to stand on while attempting to ridicule other country's systems, it does seem kind of cruel and unusual for a system to not accept the not guilty verdict of a jury and then re-try her on the same charges, double jeopardy I think that's called. That seems wrong in any system. I imagine we have our own version of that perversion here. In either place, that would seem quite wrong. Took her to trial, she was found not guilty, iirc, and that should be the end of it, imo.
Click to expand...

In the US all they will do is get their revenge on you if you ever go back to court. Just look at what happened to OJ. Does anyone really believe he deserved the sentence he got for the crime he was actually convicted for? I doubt it.
 
Redbeard said:
Most people are certainly interested in justice, but trying someone three [3] times for the same crime tis abit overboard.
Click to expand...

If she's guilty of murder that's the least of what she deserves. Unfortunately, we simply don't know.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Canada's system is probably more pragmatic and fair than the American system, but Americans seem to think that our constitution was written by the hand of Jesus himself so you'll never get them to admit that.

I never understood the cult-like reverence we have for our founding fathers and the constitution. It's just a legal document, for goodness sake. We are capable of making mistakes just like any other country.
Click to expand...

As founding documents go, the US constitution is pretty terrific from my perspective. To be able to live more than two centuries and to still seem fresh and relevant is pretty remarkable. No founding document should be too easily amended, so I appreciate the US reverance shown the constitution - ours in Canada is pretty hard to amend too, which is good although occasionally frustrating too.
 
Summerwind said:
While I agree in principle with your comments, ie US justice system sucks and therefore we have no leg to stand on while attempting to ridicule other country's systems, it does seem kind of cruel and unusual for a system to not accept the not guilty verdict of a jury and then re-try her on the same charges, double jeopardy I think that's called. That seems wrong in any system. I imagine we have our own version of that perversion here. In either place, that would seem quite wrong. Took her to trial, she was found not guilty, iirc, and that should be the end of it, imo.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but Knox was convicted, by a jury, in the original trial in Italy - the jury conviction was voided on appeal, and sent back to retrial - this week's result is the outcome of that further appeal - Knox and her representatives refused to participate in the new trial - this week's result will no doubt be further appealled so a final outcome is not yet in place.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As founding documents go, the US constitution is pretty terrific from my perspective. To be able to live more than two centuries and to still seem fresh and relevant is pretty remarkable. No founding document should be too easily amended, so I appreciate the US reverance shown the constitution - ours in Canada is pretty hard to amend too, which is good although occasionally frustrating too.
Click to expand...

It's just a legal document. I agree with about 70-80 percent of it, the rest is crap.

For instance, you ever hear of the 3/5 rule? That's where blacks were considered only 3/5ths human. That's right there in the American Constitution.

Sure, it was amended, but that's the point.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's just a legal document. I agree with about 70-80 percent of it, the rest is crap.

For instance, you ever hear of the 3/5 rule? That's where blacks were considered only 3/5ths human. That's right there in the American Constitution.

Sure, it was amended, but that's the point.
Click to expand...

At the time, considering sentiment in the southern slave states, agreeing to the 3/5ths rule could be argued as enlightened. Of course, it now seems to be impossibly ignorant. No document is perfect, but it's more than just any old legal document, in my view.
 
solletica said:
For people who come from free countries, the US is indeed like a prison.
Click to expand...

Is that why more of them immigrate here than the other way around?
And yes I mean free countries not the banana republics south of the border.
 
PeteEU said:
He is a French citizen.. they do not extradite their own citizens.
Click to expand...


But the US should extradite their own citizens? That's rather a double standard, don't you think? :lol:
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's just a legal document. I agree with about 70-80 percent of it, the rest is crap.

For instance, you ever hear of the 3/5 rule? That's where blacks were considered only 3/5ths human. That's right there in the American Constitution.

Sure, it was amended, but that's the point.
Click to expand...

It is always humorous to read these sort of statements from people who read the document but not the reasons behind it.

The 3/5ths clause was not a declaration or definition of a black person as 3/5ths of a person it was a compromise to prevent slave owning states from using their slaves as votes ( controlled by the slave owner of course ) which would have tipped the scales against states without slavery. The clause was actually put in place to limit slavery and it's spread not to place value on slavery or define people.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
It is always humorous to read these sort of statements from people who read the document but not the reasons behind it.

The 3/5ths clause was not a declaration or definition of a black person as 3/5ths of a person it was a compromise to prevent slave owning states from using their slaves as votes ( controlled by the slave owner of course ) which would have tipped the scales against states without slavery. The clause was actually put in place to limit slavery and it's spread not to place value on slavery or define people.
Click to expand...

It still shows the fallibility of the document, doesn't it?
 
shrubnose said:
If the USA doesn't send this young lady to Italy when Italy asks for her extradition, the USA can probably forget about Italy ever sending anyone to the USA.




"What goes around, comes around."
Click to expand...

Who cares?
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's just a legal document. I agree with about 70-80 percent of it, the rest is crap.

For instance, you ever hear of the 3/5 rule? That's where blacks were considered only 3/5ths human. That's right there in the American Constitution.

Sure, it was amended, but that's the point.
Click to expand...

Where is this 3/5 rule in the Constitution?
 
Peter Grimm said:
It still shows the fallibility of the document, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really. At worst the founders were exhibiting the widely held view that slaves were not and could not be citizens because they were aliens and would likely show no loyalty to the a United States. At best they realized no Constitution with an outright slavery ban would be ratified and decided to let future governments deal with it. Of course that led to a catastrophic war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom