• 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
In America you only get one shot to prove someone is guilty and if that conviction is overturned then too bad you do not get another shot to prove that person is guilty of that crime.Our country should aid other countries in jailing our citizens for things that are not a crime and or unconstitutional over in the US. I would like to see the option no she should be extradited because that would be a violation of her 5th amendment rights.




No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Not true. The federal government can declare it is prosecuting the exact same offense if the call it a criminal violation of civil rights.
 
except that the US must have had a good reason to have an extradition treaty with Italy (possibly mob related).

Quite, but you cannot pick and choose when to apply the treaty and when not. It's a bit of an always or never situation.
 
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.
 
Not one IRA Terrorist was ever extradited back to the UK from the US

Cowards colluding with terrorists » The Spectator

One law for the Americans » The Spectator

No surprise when USA lets Britain down again | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express

NY Times (1984) said:
A Federal judge in Manhattan yesterday refused to extradite a member of the Irish Republican Army convicted of the murder of a British soldier, ruling that the slaying was a political act.

U.S. JUDGE REJECTS BID FOR EXTRADITION OF I.R.A. MURDERER - NYTimes.com

So it's a legitimate political act for a terrorist to kill a British soldier according to US Law, and yet come 9/11 we have a treaty that allows the US to take people at will in relation to terrorism. What if we had deemed 9/11 a Political Act due to American Foreign Policy???
 
Just a point on this thread. Courts find people guilty or not-guilty. The issue of being innocent is not the question. The question in a criminal case is not about what is but of what can be proved. That is why people who are tried for crimes that seem like they are slam dunks (OJ as mentioned here) get set free. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough burden, especially when what is reasonable is left to the 12 people sitting in judgement.

In this case Knox will likely not be sent back to Italy but she will be arrested probably anywhere in the EU if she travels there. I wonder what people will say if she ever does fall into the hands of the Italians.
 
Nor should it happen.

**** Europe!

Grow up boy!

Did you ever think about what this would mean?

Sine police and justice cooperation started to intensivy in Europe during the last 20 years it helped crack down on crime very substancialy.

In a globalised world crime is globalised aswell, and the effort against crime should be global.
 
Not true. The federal government can declare it is prosecuting the exact same offense if the call it a criminal violation of civil rights.
Which is nothing more than blatant violation of the 5th amendment.
 
I believe that the second trial violates our concept of double-jeopardy, so we should extradite her for that reason. She's our citizen presently within our jurisdiction. Other countries who disagree with the death penalty refuse to extradite to us because we do have the death penalty (where applicable), and this scenario fits within that principle and mindset.

Now, if she chooses to ever go to Italy on her own, or anywhere where she might be extradited, then we should feel no obligation to try and rescue her.
 
I believe that the second trial violates our concept of double-jeopardy, so we should extradite her for that reason. She's our citizen presently within our jurisdiction. Other countries who disagree with the death penalty refuse to extradite to us because we do have the death penalty (where applicable), and this scenario fits within that principle and mindset.

Now, if she chooses to ever go to Italy on her own, or anywhere where she might be extradited, then we should feel no obligation to try and rescue her.

The difference being that people convicted of murder are usually extradited to the US to serve prison sentences, they just can not be executed and that applies to most countries who don't have the death penalty and not just Europe. The difference here being that Amanda Knox will be totally free despite being wanted for Murder in a West European country and ally of the US.

The Italians are usually quite good to Americans, and the US Naval Support Facility which supports US Naval Operations including the United States Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and Middle East is in Italy. As is the US Naval Air Station Sigonella, the USAF Aviano Air Base, which was expanded despite fierce protests from some Italians and the US also has army bases at Caserma Ederle, near Vicenza (northern Italy, in the Veneto region — HQ of the US Southern European Task Force and of the US 173d Airborne Brigade) snd at Camp Darby. Located in the Province of Pisa, half way between Pisa and Livorno, it is allegedly the largest US base outside of US territory. A 1951 US-Italian agreement conceded to the Pentagon the transformation of thousands of acres of Tuscan woods in a secret military base. Camp Darby is named in honour of William O. Darby, founder of the US 1st Ranger Battalion, who died on the battlefield in Italy in 1945
 
Last edited:
The difference being that people convicted of murder are usually extradited to the US to serve prison sentences, they just can not be executed and that applies to most countries who don't have the death penalty and not just Europe. The difference here being that Amanda Knox will be totally free despite being wanted for Murder in a West European country and ally of the US.

The Italians are usually quite good to Americans, and the US Naval Support Facility which supports US Naval Operations in
...wanted for murder... in a second trial... which goes against our concept of double-jeopardy.

While I don't have examples to cite off the top of my head... nor am I inclined to go look... I'd bet that there have been many instances in history where we have refused to extradite regardless what the other country did or said. Hence, her now being wanted for murder in Italy is not automatically of primary relevance.
 
...wanted for murder... in a second trial... which goes against our concept of double-jeopardy.

While I don't have examples to cite off the top of my head... nor am I inclined to go look... I'd bet that there have been many instances in history where we have refused to extradite regardless what the other country did or said. Hence, her now being wanted for murder in Italy is not automatically of primary relevance.

She was found guilty in the first trial, and the case is technically still on going. I would also be very careful of being critical of the Italian Judicial System, as I am afraid in terms of extradition what goes around comes around, and in terms of Italy or the UK, I can not find any case where a convicted murderer wanted by the US hasn't been returned.

If the US wants to scrap extradition agreements then that is fine, I have no problem with that, but we can not be party to an unequal extradition agreement.
 
She was found guilty in the first trial, and the case is technically still on going. I would also be very careful of being critical of the Italian Judicial System, as I am afraid in terms of extradition what goes around comes around, and in terms of Italy or the UK, I can not find any case where a convicted murderer wanted by the US hasn't been returned.

If the US wants to scrap extradition agreements then that is fine, I have no problem with that, but we can not be party to an unequal extradition agreement.
The first conviction was overturned, or dismissed, or whatever they call it there. Here, because of the way it fell out, the second trial would equal double-jeopardy.

Yes, countries have extradition treaties that are supposed to be honored, and usually are honored, but it is fact that there are little exceptions made at random times. Countries refusing to extradite to us over the possible implementation of the death penalty is a prime and relevant example. These exceptions have been made without any lasting disruption of the overall friendship between countries. Any fallout, if any at all, will be minor and will go away quickly. Only to be brought up by people like you and me in forums like this when debating the next case.
 
The UK has sent numerous terrorists and wanted criminals back to the US in recent years, and we have even famously extradited people such as James Earl Ray in the past, despite the US refusing extraditions in relation to terrorists wanted by the UK.

The only country that the US has problems extraditing people from in Western Europe is France, as French Nationals have far greater protection from extradition to countries such as the US, something other countries such as Italy could impliment themselves if they so wanted.
 
The first conviction was overturned, or dismissed, or whatever they call it there. Here, because of the way it fell out, the second trial would equal double-jeopardy.

Yes, countries have extradition treaties that are supposed to be honored, and usually are honored, but it is fact that there are little exceptions made at random times. Countries refusing to extradite to us over the possible implementation of the death penalty is a prime and relevant example. These exceptions have been made without any lasting disruption of the overall friendship between countries. Any fallout, if any at all, will be minor and will go away quickly. Only to be brought up by people like you and me in forums like this when debating the next case.

In US justice double jeopardy only applies after a final judgement has been handed down, and it this case that hasn't happened yet. The Italian Supreme Court has to ratify the judgement of the lower court.
 
^^

As the above poster points out there any move to use double jeopardy will be controversial, given that a final judgement has not yet been passed by the Italian Courts.


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

The Washington Times said:
“The U.S. could take the position that subjecting Ms. Knox to re-prosecution in Italy could violate her constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen,” Mr. Zagaris said.

“In circumstances where a requested person has been previously acquitted for the same act or offense in the requesting country, it has been held that there is no constitutional or statutory bar to the U.S. granting extradition. … It is an issue U.S. extradition treaties normally do not cover. Ordinarily, the secretary of state in his or her discretionary authority must deal with this issue.”

Mr. Kerry’s potential conundrum shines a light on the emerging era of “transnational law,” which pits the domestic laws of one country against the citizens of another. In this case, three countries are affected — the U.S., Britain and Italy.

Transnational law differs from international law, which applies equally to members of the United Nations and is enforced by impartial, international bodies such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

Denying an Italian request to extradite Ms. Knox for the murder of a British national could have diplomatic consequences with Italy and Britain.

“Extradition is a mutuality-reciprocal relationship, and Italy would not feel good about accusations concerning its criminal justice system,” Mr. Zagaris said.

If the U.S. denies an Italian extradition request but later needs to extradite a fugitive from Italy, authorities there could “return the favor” by denying the U.S. request, possibly turning Italy into a haven for organized crime syndicates there.

In a 2013 Wall Street Journal article, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz opined: “As national borders become more porous … the trend toward the transnational application of laws will become more pronounced. … By becoming an exchange student in Italy, Ms. Knox subjected herself to Italian law. By coming back to America, she received the protection of the American extradition process. As for how this will turn out, she is in uncharted territory.

Italian court convicts Amanda Knox of murder for second time - Washington Times
 
Last edited:
Quite, but you cannot pick and choose when to apply the treaty and when not. It's a bit of an always or never situation.

Yes, I do not know how to justify it but I think extradition is especially for people who are about to stand trial.
 
Yes, I do not know how to justify it but I think extradition is especially for people who are about to stand trial.

No, it applies equally to people accused of, or convicted of a crime.

I don't think anyone needs to justify their stance on this matter other than those making the decisions.

If I were involved in Knox's defence I'd be arguing strongly the way some people here have been arguing - double jeopardy, not evidence, anti-Americanism etc etc to ensure that the whole issue became a huge political bun-fight. If I were associated with the Kerchers, I'd be trying to muster all the influence I could to apply pressure on the US authorities to fulfil their treaty commitments. If I were associated in any way with the Italian judicial system I'd be sitting in a darkened room somewhere gibbering incoherently.
 
No, it applies equally to people accused of, or convicted of a crime.

I don't think anyone needs to justify their stance on this matter other than those making the decisions.

If I were involved in Knox's defence I'd be arguing strongly the way some people here have been arguing - double jeopardy, not evidence, anti-Americanism etc etc to ensure that the whole issue became a huge political bun-fight. If I were associated with the Kerchers, I'd be trying to muster all the influence I could to apply pressure on the US authorities to fulfil their treaty commitments. If I were associated in any way with the Italian judicial system I'd be sitting in a darkened room somewhere gibbering incoherently.

The problem with that is that the appeals process is one and the same trial and does not constitute double jeopardy.
 
The problem with that is that the appeals process is one and the same trial and does not constitute double jeopardy.

I know. I'm not saying I think it's legally sound, I'd just be looking for a strategy that combines a narrative that would win public support, and one that would create the right political climate that would make a court think twice about extradition.
 
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 know. I was joking about the police's creative methodologies.
 
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

How would you feel if an Italian national committed a crime on US soil, fled back to Italy, and then Italy killed any Americans involved in trying to get him or her back to the United States?

Surely the situation is analogous? Or do you believe Americans have some sort of divine right to be above the law?
 
No. Considering the Double Jeopardy issue she should not be extradited to Italy. However, if she leaves the US and is arrested elsewhere on the warrant she should not get US assistance.

This whole issue shows why no intelligent American ever leaves thus country to begin with.

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.

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

That's very much untrue. The US has lots of extradition treaties, and in fact extradites US nationals all the time. It's just common courtesy -- otherwise, what's to stop other countries from refusing to extradite criminals to the US?
 
How would you feel if an Italian national committed a crime on US soil, fled back to Italy, and then Italy killed any Americans involved in trying to get him or her back to the United States?

Surely the situation is analogous? Or do you believe Americans have some sort of divine right to be above the law?

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
 
Back
Top Bottom