• 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
Tell Italy to stick their extradition request where the light don't shine and if Italy makes any attempt to grab the girl, send in a kill team to waste any Italian involved in such activity




Do you have any idea where the Mafia comes from?
 
There's the most significant option missing:

No, the US shouldn't allow Italy to subject a US citizen to double jeopardy.
 
For those that think she should be extradited, should a foreign government that has acquitted an American citizen have the right to call that person back for the rest of their life? Maybe show up 20 years from now and decide to reopen the case and demand extradition?
There's no statute of limitations on many of the most heinous crimes. If evidence arises that proves someone's guilt, it ought to be heard and an injustice righted if it possibly can be. Like in this case:

Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, William Dunlop, was initially acquitted in 1991 and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.

On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Julie Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted. Dunlop pleaded guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.
From Wikipedia Double Jeopardy
 
I really think there should have been one more choice up there.

Here, is the US, we do not have "double jeopardy". She was found guilty and that was overturned on appeal and found innocent. Once that happens here in the US, the matter is over. Since that is the case, I think we should keep her here and free. If an Italian was tried here and found innocent, we would never bring it up again. It seems to me that you should always err on the side of the accused here. If we were to open it up to being tried over and over again until they get convicted, I think that would be a bad precedent. If we do let her be extradited, then we should form special laws for the citizens of other countries that have double jeopardy so that we can try their citizens over and over again until they're convicted.
 
I just found this article that appears to show that exactly what took place in the case in Italy is possible in a US courtroom.

Motion for a judgement of acquittal

Now, I'm no lawyer, but that seems clear enough i.e. that a court may set aside an acquittal and call for a retrial. Can anyone tell me why this is different to what happened in Florence?
 
I think where it gets confusing for Americans is that in Italy both parties can appeal a verdict. Even if they had been found innocent at the very first verdict, the prosecution could have appealed. The trial isn't over until all appeals are exhausted. As far as I know, when someone is acquitted in the US system, that's the end of it. The prosecution has to accept defeat and the trial is over. Not so in Italy.

It's certainly a different system. However, the SC never never called the verdict for either side. That's the mAin problem for Knox.
 
It's certainly a different system. However, the SC never never called the verdict for either side. That's the mAin problem for Knox.

They haven't issued the final ruling yet, no. That's the next step in the process. If they confirm the guilty verdict, then extradition may be officially requested. Although there is some speculation that Italy might not even bother to request it.
 
They haven't issued the final ruling yet, no. That's the next step in the process. If they confirm the guilty verdict, then extradition may be officially requested. Although there is some speculation that Italy might not even bother to request it.

They don't want another round of American Legal experts-left right and in the middle, slamming their piss poor procedures
 
They don't want another round of American Legal experts-left right and in the middle, slamming their piss poor procedures

I don't think the Italian system itself is flawed. I like the idea of being able to retry someone if brand new incriminating evidence comes to light. I like the idea of their three level appeals process. The problem with this case is not the system, but the level of incompetence that was evident all through the entire process. From the initial investigation, the botched forensics, the questionable police interrogation techniques, the character assassination made worse by the media's abject obsession with Amanda, the borderline mentally unstable prosecutor, etc... It was a combination of factors, a perfect storm that resulted in two people convicted on practically zero evidence.
 
If the Italians have honored their side of the extradition treaty, there may not be much of a choice.



Putting aside whether the Italian justice system passes muster (by my notions it doesn't), the whole process was marred from the outset by questionable police action (undertaken to compensate for a lack of objective evidence). Even the best justice systems can be sabotaged by questionable police action.
/ OJ Likes this.
 
I don't think the Italian system itself is flawed. I like the idea of being able to retry someone if brand new incriminating evidence comes to light. I like the idea of their three level appeals process. The problem with this case is not the system, but the level of incompetence that was evident all through the entire process. From the initial investigation, the botched forensics, the questionable police interrogation techniques, the character assassination made worse by the media's abject obsession with Amanda, the borderline mentally unstable prosecutor, etc... It was a combination of factors, a perfect storm that resulted in two people convicted on practically zero evidence.

that is a very good summation.
 
/ OJ Likes this.

Every O.J. can be matched with others wrongfully convicted due to police overzealousness. Having a justice system that sends you backwards in meting out justice is principally worse than nothing having one at all.
 
I don't think Amanda Knox should be extradited, but not because of the reasons listed in the poll.

Nations which have outlawed capital punishment generally won't extradite for a capital offense without a guarantee that the prosecutor won't seek the death penalty, so I don't see why we should honor Italy's double jeopardy.
 
I don't think Amanda Knox should be extradited, but not because of the reasons listed in the poll.

Nations which have outlawed capital punishment generally won't extradite for a capital offense without a guarantee that the prosecutor won't seek the death penalty, so I don't see why we should honor Italy's double jeopardy.

the Italian argument holds no water. we have a convicted criminal who was also convicted of the murder of the British Girl who has no real connection or concordance of interest with Knox and her italian boyfriend. That alone casts almost fatal doubt on the Italian theory. Hatuey noted on this (or the thread I started about Knox) about what is the most likely scenario.
 
the Italian argument holds no water. we have a convicted criminal who was also convicted of the murder of the British Girl who has no real connection or concordance of interest with Knox and her italian boyfriend. That alone casts almost fatal doubt on the Italian theory. Hatuey noted on this (or the thread I started about Knox) about what is the most likely scenario.

Honestly, I haven't been following the details of the case. What few details I read made me so angry I had to file it under NOPE and walk away.
 
There's no statute of limitations on many of the most heinous crimes. If evidence arises that proves someone's guilt, it ought to be heard and an injustice righted if it possibly can be. Like in this case:

From Wikipedia Double Jeopardy

While it may let some bad guys off the hook, as a whole double jeopardy is a great law to have. The state should not be allowed to come back and retry someone over and over again until they get the conviction they want.
 
While it may let some bad guys off the hook, as a whole double jeopardy is a great law to have. The state should not be allowed to come back and retry someone over and over again until they get the conviction they want.

Since I don't know of anywhere where that can happen, those don't seem to be the two competing options. That's not what has happened in Italy and, in countries where second trials can take place, there are tightly applied criteria for when this may happen. As usual, hard and fast, no exceptions made, blanket bans tend to be deeply flawed and lacking in natural justice.
 
Since I don't know of anywhere where that can happen, those don't seem to be the two competing options. That's not what has happened in Italy and, in countries where second trials can take place, there are tightly applied criteria for when this may happen. As usual, hard and fast, no exceptions made, blanket bans tend to be deeply flawed and lacking in natural justice.

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.
 
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.

No, that's not the case at all. I've explained this about four times now. What has just happened in Italy is that this conviction is the culmination of the original indictment. They were tried and found guilty. They appealed, and were acquitted. The prosecution appealed that acquittal on the basis of wrong procedure. The Court of Cassation, which is superior to the Appellate Court ruled that the acquittal hearing had been improperly conducted. It was not a new trial, but the continuation of the appeals process from the original trial. You have appeals in the US judicial system too, and it is possible for an acquittal to be overturned. That's what happened in Florence.
 
I have zero trust in the Italian legal system and have serious doubts about her guilt and because of that the US should not extradite citizens to countries in which they most likely will not or have not received a full and fair trial.
 
I have zero trust in the Italian legal system and have serious doubts about her guilt and because of that the US should not extradite citizens to countries in which they most likely will not or have not received a full and fair trial.

Any system run by lawyers has got to make you think twice, I guess, but if you don't trust a nation's judicial system, don't make extradition treaties with them.
 
Any system run by lawyers has got to make you think twice, I guess, but if you don't trust a nation's judicial system, don't make extradition treaties with them.

except that the US must have had a good reason to have an extradition treaty with Italy (possibly mob related).
 
America stricktly refuses most extraditions into any country in the world and Europe refuses most of extraditions into the US

So either way, before specific cases can be debated, a common understanding would have to be found by both regions.

And that is not likely to happen.
Nor should it happen.

**** Europe!
 
I don't know enough about it to answer. I would think the USA would have to honor the extradition request or the refusals would become both ways.

If it were the other way around, we'd probably just declare she's a terrorist and use a drone attack.
 
Back
Top Bottom