• 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!

Should Amanda Knox Be Extradited to Prison in Italy?

Should Amanda Knox Be Extradited to Prison in Italy?

  • Yes, in accordance with the US-Italy extradition treaty.

    Votes: 18 33.3%
  • Yes, she should be imprisoned somewhere, but maybe in the US.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, Americans shouldn't be extradited to foreign nations even if they're guilty.

    Votes: 6 11.1%
  • No, she isn't guilty.

    Votes: 30 55.6%

  • Total voters
    54
If America wants to scrap it's extradition treaty with European countries that's fine with me, in fact it won't make much difference because we hardly ever have extradition granted any way and that includes those who have carried out acts of terrorism in the UK, whilst allow Americans to just extradite who ever they want and even use our country for extraordinary rendition.

The Italians are also getting tired of a one way US extradition treaty, this being the latest in a long line of cases such as the 1998 "Massacre of Cermis.", when American military jet clipped a ski lift cable, sending a gondola of 20 passengers to their deaths in the Italian Dolomite Mountains.

Italian prosecutors wanted the crew of the jet tried in Italy, but an Italian court ruled they should face courts-martial in the U.S., in accordance with NATO treaties. The aircraft's pilot and navigator were found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, even though the military admitted the plane had been flying lower and faster than authorized.

When it emerged that a video that captured the accident from inside the plane had been destroyed, they were dismissed from the Marine Corps. Italians were outraged, referring to the incident as the "massacre of Cermis."

In another incident that raised tensions, Egyptian cleric Abu Omar was seized off the streets of Milan in 2003 and smuggled to Egypt, where he says he was tortured and released four years later.

Although Italy did not request the extradition of any of the suspects, 22 CIA agents were convicted in absentia of the kidnapping and sentenced to prison time for their role in the abduction, but none ever served time in Italy.

Furthermore if Knox is not extradited for Murder, the Italians may review it's extradition treaty with the US, and guess what the Italian Mafia have close links to organised crime groups in the US, so that's good news for organised crime in the US.

Finally not returning a convicted murderer makes a mockery of attempts to extradite the likes of Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, and other countries including Russia will look at this case when determining extradition cases, it may even become a judicial precedent.

I don't think you're being entirely fair -- the US extradites both Britons and Americans to the UK all the time. There have been some high-profile cases, particularly to do with the IRA, that have aroused the ire of the UK about the UK-US extradition treaty, but if you read it, I think you'll agree it's pretty fair.

I agree with you that the US refusing to extradite some IRA members due to a very loose interpretation of what 'political refugee' means is pretty unstomachable. Equally, though, Britain flatly refuses to extradite murderers to the US unless the US promises not to go for the death penalty.
 
1) the bold part distinguishes this

2) I am an American. One of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens from the depredations or injustices of other governments or peoples. Italy has proven to me (someone with 3 decades of dealing with criminal appeals and due process and probable cause) that its handling of this case was grossly incompetent to the point that the interest in our government protecting one of its citizens trumps the desire of an incompetent and corrupt tribunal to continue to perpetrate a fraud in the name of justice

I agree. The trial was a complete circus, and I still haven't heard of any kind of valid evidence to prove that Amanda Knox had anything to do with the murder. I think it was the guy she took home from the bar (whatever his name was) who murdered her, and I think that Amanda and her boyfriend were probably doing their own thing at the time of the murder.
 
1) the bold part distinguishes this

2) I am an American. One of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens from the depredations or injustices of other governments or peoples. Italy has proven to me (someone with 3 decades of dealing with criminal appeals and due process and probable cause) that its handling of this case was grossly incompetent to the point that the interest in our government protecting one of its citizens trumps the desire of an incompetent and corrupt tribunal to continue to perpetrate a fraud in the name of justice

Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?

Why the double standard?
 
Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?

Why the double standard?
The Polanski thing is just a high-profile example that sometimes countries do not always honor these treaties, for whatever reason is important to them. This is not uncommon, and it happens in both directions. It is NOT solely an American, or French, or anybody else thing. And the treaties still stand and all countries that participate still extradite far more often than they don't.

Those who are claiming a potential breakdown of the whole treaty system are simply being naive.
 
Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?

Why the double standard?

Not really but he is an American citizen demanded to be returned to his country. He also violated the rights of another American citizen. If Amanda Knox was an Italian, it would be different since an Italian citizen's legal rights are not as important to America as the rights of an American citizens
 
That's what's happening in Italy. The prosecution found more evidence that they feel could change the outcome of the previous trial, so they're having another. That's even exactly what you said. You said if the state finds more evidence of a crime, they should be able to call back and retry that person.

If you have enough trials, you'll eventually get a conviction for something.




I believe that's kind of what some people have thought about Bill Clinton.

But so far he's still walking around doing whatever he wants to do.
 
That's what's happening in Italy. The prosecution found more evidence that they feel could change the outcome of the previous trial, so they're having another. That's even exactly what you said. You said if the state finds more evidence of a crime, they should be able to call back and retry that person.

If you have enough trials, you'll eventually get a conviction for something.

SOP for our so-called justice system.
 
I believe that's kind of what some people have thought about Bill Clinton.

But so far he's still walking around doing whatever he wants to do.

Not so for OJ though!
 
I agree. The trial was a complete circus, and I still haven't heard of any kind of valid evidence to prove that Amanda Knox had anything to do with the murder. I think it was the guy she took home from the bar (whatever his name was) who murdered her, and I think that Amanda and her boyfriend were probably doing their own thing at the time of the murder.

Y'see? This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread. You appear to need no evidence to convict Woody Allen, but you need loads of it for Knox. This argument has more than a touch of hypocrisy about it. What convicted Knox, I suspect, was her own evidence and testimonies that she changed, invented, forgot about and contradicted herself. She accused someone of committing the murder, which she 'witnessed', who was then proved to have a cast-iron alibi. I think she pretty much convicted herself.
 
Y'see? This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread. You appear to need no evidence to convict Woody Allen, but you need loads of it for Knox. This argument has more than a touch of hypocrisy about it. What convicted Knox, I suspect, was her own evidence and testimonies that she changed, invented, forgot about and contradicted herself. She accused someone of committing the murder, which she 'witnessed', who was then proved to have a cast-iron alibi. I think she pretty much convicted herself.

Changing your story is not evidence of murder. There was no person (besides the originally accused) who pointed at her and said "she did it" either. She was probably scared out of her mind, being accused of murder in a foreign country with no family around to help her. God only knows how long they had interrogated the poor girl for.
 
I don't think you're being entirely fair -- the US extradites both Britons and Americans to the UK all the time. There have been some high-profile cases, particularly to do with the IRA, that have aroused the ire of the UK about the UK-US extradition treaty, but if you read it, I think you'll agree it's pretty fair.

I agree with you that the US refusing to extradite some IRA members due to a very loose interpretation of what 'political refugee' means is pretty unstomachable. Equally, though, Britain flatly refuses to extradite murderers to the US unless the US promises not to go for the death penalty.

Britain doesn't flatly refuse to extradite murderers to the US unless the US promises not to execute them, that it is European Law rather than national law, and is part of the European Convention on Human Rights signed in 1953 and which covers most of Europe, whilst many other countries without the death penalty themselves have a similar requirement.

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also don't agree the IRA cases were fair at all, especially given that the US has ignored all political boundaries since 9/11 and has extradited a lot of Britons on far lesser terrorist charges than the murder of a US soldiers. Indeed the current terrorism against the US could be just as easily labelled political and to do with US Forces occupying parts of the Middle East and Afghanistan, or US Foreign Policy in relation to certain regions and indeed Israel.

I also don't think the current extradition treaty with the US is fair and support it's reform.
 
Last edited:
Are you serious, and this is guy serious? That is NOT evidence beyond circumstantial. Lots of evidence? What a joke!

What Alan Dershowitz Professor of Law at Harvard University
 
The US should not extradite her. It would be double jeopardy. She was found not guilty and sent home, upon some Italian re-trial (of which she probably wasn't present for) they do find her guilty. In such a case the US should not extradite.
 
It is debatable whether this constitutes double jeopardy, as the Italian system is different to the US System an a final decision has not been reached, in what is appeals rather than separate cases.

The Wall Street Journal said:
Now Italy's highest court has 90 days to explain its decision to reverse that acquittal. Whatever its reasoning, Italian law calls for the case to be reheard by a new appeals court, which can either affirm the conviction or order an acquittal. If the conviction is ultimately affirmed, the Italian government can petition the U.S. to extradite Ms. Knox to Italy to complete serving the 26-year prison term to which she was sentenced in 2009.

Ms. Knox would likely challenge any extradition request on the ground that she was already acquitted by the lower appellate court, so any subsequent conviction would constitute double jeopardy.

That is when the real legal complexities would kick in, because Italian and American law are quite different and both will be applicable in this transnational case involving a citizen of one country charged with killing a citizen of another country in yet a third country.

America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the U.S. from extraditing someone who has been "acquitted," which under American law generally means acquitted by a jury at trial. But Ms. Knox was acquitted by an appeals court after having been found guilty at trial. So would her circumstance constitute double jeopardy under American law?

That is uncertain because appellate courts in the U.S. don't retry cases and render acquittals (they judge whether lower courts made mistakes of law, not fact). Ms. Knox's own Italian lawyer has acknowledged that her appellate "acquittal" wouldn't constitute double jeopardy under Italian law since it wasn't a final judgment—it was subject to further appeal, which has now resulted in a reversal of the acquittal. This argument will probably carry considerable weight with U.S. authorities, likely yielding the conclusion that her extradition wouldn't violate the treaty. Still, a sympathetic U.S. State Department or judge might find that her appellate acquittal was final enough to preclude extradition on double-jeopardy grounds.

Alan Dershowitz: Amanda Knox
 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?
 
Don't be an absurd -- what you're recommending is a recipe for ignorance and xenophobia. The wide world is a fascinating and beautiful place, and the vast majority of it does not lie within the boundaries of your country.

The wide world if the modern age is a place I have no use for. I am an Isolationist at heart and always will be. There's nothing outside the US that I need to see.

Perhaps wiser advice is, "Don't murder people", potentially with an added "Especially in foreign countries."

Don't leave the US and it's not an issue to begin with. Honestly, she shouldn't have gotten any aid from the US when she was tried originally but now that she's home there's no way the US should allow her to be sent back to a Socialist **** hole like Italy.
 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?

It might be subject to review, in terms of Italy and there is a long running campaign to further reform the current UK extradition arrangements with the US.
 
The wide world if the modern age is a place I have no use for. I am an Isolationist at heart and always will be. There's nothing outside the US that I need to see.



Don't leave the US and it's not an issue to begin with. Honestly, she shouldn't have gotten any aid from the US when she was tried originally but now that she's home there's no way the US should allow her to be sent back to a Socialist **** hole like Italy.

Speaking for everyone who lives outside the USA, I'd like to say I sincerely hope you take your own advice.
 
Speaking for everyone who lives outside the USA, I'd like to say I sincerely hope you take your own advice.

Trust me, I have no intent of ever leaving the US. As much if a **** hole as the US is, it's Eden compared to most of the rest of the world.
 
It might be subject to review, in terms of Italy and there is a long running campaign to further reform the current UK extradition arrangements with the US.

Broadly speaking, it might be less complicated for the US to just not have extradition treaties with anyone. Might not be long before other countries negate their treaties with the US, thinking it's just a one-way deal anyway.
 
I picked the first option because if our treaty requires us to extradite her, we should comply. If it doesn't require us to extradite her, then we shouldn't. (say, if double jeopardy is excluded from the treaty).

But the idea that we should just ignore the treaty because 'MURCA OORAH is ludicrous.
 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?
Technically, probably. On paper.

In the real world, probably not. It would be seen as just another minor squabble and the two countries would go on about their business of generally being friends and supporting each other. Happens quite often, actually.
 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?

I don't see why.

it's been long established that countries do not have to extradict if doing so violates their own civil rights protections. it's been brought up dozens of times this thread, but Canada won't extradict to the united states anyone charged with a capital offense unless the death penalty is taken off the table. (personally, I'm of the opinion that if another country refuses to extradict to us on that grounds we should just say "OK, he's yours, I'm sure our capital murderers will make a wonderful addition to your society" congradulations on a new canadian national!")

Brazil will not extradict a Brazilian citizen nor the mother of a brazilian citizen under any circumstances.

treaties are broad like that.
 
Broadly speaking, it might be less complicated for the US to just not have extradition treaties with anyone. Might not be long before other countries negate their treaties with the US, thinking it's just a one-way deal anyway.

I am fine with that, it usual is a one way street any way, indeed we rarely seek extradition in the way US Authorities do and even in terms of terrorists have been unable to secure extradition from the US, and you are talking about individuals who have planted bombs in the UK and have murdered soldiers and police officers. It always was a one way street, and personally I think the French have the right idea, as they refuse to extradite any French nationals (outside of the EU).

It all changed after 9/11, and the current 2003 UK/US Extradition treaty is a joke, it provides far more protection from extradition for US Citizens than it does British Citizens and was originally designed to ensure that terrorists could be extradited ore quickly to the US although in recent years the US has increasingly tried to extradite people for white collar crimes and internet crimes who have never even set foot in America. These are mainly British Citizens whose crimes white collar crimes where carried out on British Soil, and surely a British Citizen carrying out a crime on British Soil should be subject to a British Court and not extradited to a country many have never even set foot in before.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom