• 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
Yeah England got America back and Canada did not end up being a satellite of the USA but still remains one of England

Well, that's news indeed! Funny no-one thought to inform the Brits or Canucks.
 
They can disagree with ME all they want. It's the Gods definition that they will have to deal with eventually.
They have their own interpretations of God. Or gods if you wish. This is kinda the point. If morality were so objective, no one would disagree.

Nope. I don't watch comedies. they're a waste of time.
Fair enough. To each their own. Personally, I prefer horror.

Whereas I draw the opposite conclusion.... that nobody cares to try and fix them.
But you know that isn't so. You're not ignorant of history.

We did start with ideological perfection and then, because it wasn't fun or pleasant enough for everyone, we ran away from it.
Had it been perfect, why would anyone shrink from it?
 
Actually yes you did, you started prattling on about the EU and our membership, when this has nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with ECHR.

I see there is no point in discussing, as you don't receive, but I will try one last time. The points about EU and ECHR are related but different, giving background on our reasons for not extraditing people who may be sentenced to death and that this is not necessarily only relevant to UK, but to many EU countries who adopted certain ECHR articles.

Now you don't have to respond, I know you don't understand the point and it appears never will appreciate it is not addressed to you, as you are in Europe, but to anyone who might not have realised this about our legal process.

It might well be within our gift as you put it, as the Conservatives have suggested leaving the ECHR and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights.

Britain may need to withdraw from European Convention on Human Rights, says Cameron - Telegraph

That information is in the news and has been for months and it's really, really unlikely I could have missed it even if I tried (for feck sake).

Thank you for confirming that at this time, whether you want to admit it or not, we adhere to certain ECHR articles (European not local UK only law) and that is why...bla bla bla how many times do you need it.
 
Thank Christ that moron's out next year.
 
Thank Christ that moron's out next year.

Hear, hear. I suspect he probably will wait for the full term to expire before calling an election. At the moment it looks like Labour are 7-9% ahead in the polls. That might mean another close call, but with Labour creating the coalition. As long as it gets Osborne and Gove out of office, I'll be happy.
 
Hear, hear. I suspect he probably will wait for the full term to expire before calling an election. At the moment it looks like Labour are 7-9% ahead in the polls. That might mean another close call, but with Labour creating the coalition. As long as it gets Osborne and Gove out of office, I'll be happy.
Says it all.

+1
 
They have their own interpretations of God. Or gods if you wish. This is kinda the point. If morality were so objective, no one would disagree.

That's completely untrue. Most people want to ignore true Morality because it is neither convenient nor politically correct. It REQUIRES things of people, whether they like those things or not. It REQUIRES them to do and be things they may not want to be.... like housewives and homemakers or like productive members of society rather than lay-about losers.

But you know that isn't so. You're not ignorant of history.

I'm not ignorant of history at all. The last century and a half has been all about moving further and further away from a decent, moral, and values-based society into social anarchy where there are no rules or expectations on people.

Had it been perfect, why would anyone shrink from it?

That's not true at all. There will always be people who don't like what true Morality expects of them and who will therefore revolt against it at every opportunity.
 
From what I understand, Canada will not extradite someone back to the US if they face the
Death penalty, because it violates their laws.
Allowing Italy to extradite Amanda Knox would violate our laws against Double Jeopardy.

I was going to say something similar but about Mexico.
 
I'm not ignorant of history at all. The last century and a half has been all about moving further and further away from a decent, moral, and values-based society into social anarchy where there are no rules or expectations on people.
Heh heh. In previous times people were only moral on the surface. Out of public view they were still flawed and immoral people.
 
Heh heh. In previous times people were only moral on the surface. Out of public view they were still flawed and immoral people.

Whereas nowadays even that external venier of decency and propriety is gone. Instead of working to improve their private lives we've allowed their private immorality to become their public fce as well. Not the right direction so far as I'm concerned.
 
Whereas nowadays even that external venier of decency and propriety is gone. Instead of working to improve their private lives we've allowed their private immorality to become their public fce as well. Not the right direction so far as I'm concerned.
It almost sounds like you're saying that immorality is ok as long as we don't see it.
 
It almost sounds like you're saying that immorality is ok as long as we don't see it.

Not at all. It's never appropriate, but all that the Government can realistically do is to enforce Morality in public and against those whose immoral actions in private become known to the Government.
 
She shouldn't be extradited, but if she ever steps off of American soil, I support Italy going after her for no reason other than being an insanely dumb f'n bitch.
 
That's completely untrue. Most people want to ignore true Morality because it is neither convenient nor politically correct. It REQUIRES things of people, whether they like those things or not. It REQUIRES them to do and be things they may not want to be.... like housewives and homemakers or like productive members of society rather than lay-about losers.
Point is, an objective fact is indisputable, whereas morality is anything but that. There's no 'true' morality, it being interpretative. You may choose to believe that water doesn't boil at a hundred degrees centigrade, but that doesn't change the fact. Morality is neither universal nor replicable, being an intangible concept. You're trying to posit morality as being empirical, but it never will be. It's not a question of convenience.

I'm not ignorant of history at all. The last century and a half has been all about moving further and further away from a decent, moral, and values-based society into social anarchy where there are no rules or expectations on people.
Either that or moving towards a revised morality. People still have expectations and values. You're only arguing for your personal preference. Not being you, how could anyone else be expected to see the world precisely as you do, much less everyone? Lacking the authority to impose morality on behalf of your entire country, you've no choice but to settle for the status quo. You're not permitted to behave as you will and you'd be stopped if you tried.

That's not true at all. There will always be people who don't like what true Morality expects of them and who will therefore revolt against it at every opportunity.
Revolt's the wrong word. Morality doesn't exist as a sentient entity, capable of compelling obedience. Even God grants us the free will to do as we please. There'll always be debate and resistance, but these aren't negatives. Only ongoing feedback ensures that ideology develops as a dynamic, adaptive and responsive process. Being a Conservative, you believe that stasis is a possibility. This is one of the ways in which Conservatism is fundamentally flawed. Traditions only pave the way for novelty and modernity.

Things change.
 
Point is, an objective fact is indisputable, whereas morality is anything but that. There's no 'true' morality, it being interpretative. You may choose to believe that water doesn't boil at a hundred degrees centigrade, but that doesn't change the fact. Morality is neither universal nor replicable, being an intangible concept. You're trying to posit morality as being empirical, but it never will be. It's not a question of convenience.


Either that or moving towards a revised morality. People still have expectations and values. You're only arguing for your personal preference. Not being you, how could anyone else be expected to see the world precisely as you do, much less everyone? Lacking the authority to impose morality on behalf of your entire country, you've no choice but to settle for the status quo. You're not permitted to behave as you will and you'd be stopped if you tried.


Revolt's the wrong word. Morality doesn't exist as a sentient entity, capable of compelling obedience. Even God grants us the free will to do as we please. There'll always be debate and resistance, but these aren't negatives. Only ongoing feedback ensures that ideology develops as a dynamic, adaptive and responsive process. Being a Conservative, you believe that stasis is a possibility. This is one of the ways in which Conservatism is fundamentally flawed. Traditions only pave the way for novelty and modernity.

Things change.

Lighten up.

Moral standards and morality overall have certainly deteriorated over the last 50 years. Credit that mostly to the "It's all about me" mentality which started taking roots through the '60s and '70s...
 
I don't know why would agree to extradite prisoners to another country that's justice system is sub par. We should only ever agree to extradite people to another country if their judicial system is equal to and in agreement with our own IMO. I don't think she got a fair trial, and I think the murder investigation itself was fraught with human error and contamination of evidence (what LITTLE circumstantial evidence they actually had), they had next to NO physical evidence as far as I've seen so far. The way they went about interrogating her I also have an issue with. Did she have an opportunity to have a lawyer present? There are a lot of issues with this case and with extraditing prisoners in general.
 
Lighten up.

Moral standards and morality overall have certainly deteriorated over the last 50 years. Credit that mostly to the "It's all about me" mentality which started taking roots through the '60s and '70s...
With all due respect, that's cynical Conservative nonsense. Society has never been more advanced.
 
Not in a positive direction, if the past five or six centuries worth of history are any indication.
You'll continue to believe that while you cleave to ahistorical and outmoded ideals.
 
Lighten up.

Moral standards and morality overall have certainly deteriorated over the last 50 years. Credit that mostly to the "It's all about me" mentality which started taking roots through the '60s and '70s...

I think that "me, me, me" attitude started in the Eighties under Reagan and Thatcher, Gordon Gecko and "greed is good". We then had endless movements of anti-poor agitation; a systematic denial of the existence of community and society; the cynical, fallacious scam that was 'trickle-down' economics and the ever-widening, ever-more-extreme inequality of opportunity and income. Moral and ethical standards are certainly in a poor state, but it has nothing to do with the Sixties, hippies or free love.
 
She shouldn't be extradited, but if she ever steps off of American soil, I support Italy going after her for no reason other than being an insanely dumb f'n bitch.

That sounds like advocacy for the USA to take out the entire Italian justice system since its insanely dumb and "F'd" up!
 
I think that "me, me, me" attitude started in the Eighties under Reagan and Thatcher, Gordon Gecko and "greed is good". We then had endless movements of anti-poor agitation; a systematic denial of the existence of community and society; the cynical, fallacious scam that was 'trickle-down' economics and the ever-widening, ever-more-extreme inequality of opportunity and income. Moral and ethical standards are certainly in a poor state, but it has nothing to do with the Sixties, hippies or free love.

the entire concept of welfare is ME ME ME. The only thing more selfish than imposing costs on other people merely because they exist within the same geopolitical boundary as you do, is using forced charity to buy yourself the votes of the recipients of such handouts.
 
That sounds like advocacy for the USA to take out the entire Italian justice system since its insanely dumb and "F'd" up!

I'm an isolationist. It's dumb, but it's theirs.

I also turn a blind eye on other religious and tribal practices that America thinks is "cruel" or "inhumane". Female circumcision, for instance.

I support America minding its own business.
 
I'm an isolationist. It's dumb, but it's theirs.

I also turn a blind eye on other religious and tribal practices that America thinks is "cruel" or "inhumane". Female circumcision, for instance.

I support America minding its own business.

me too but if another country screws with one of our citizens and its unjustified, I say unleash the dogs of hell!!
 
the entire concept of welfare is ME ME ME.

Nonsense. If people putting in a full week's work hours (40+) are still having to claim welfare, it's because they are being underpaid and the selfishness is coming from the employer.
using forced charity to buy yourself the votes of the recipients of such handouts.
You mean like giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% or earners? Those don't just buy votes, they buy Super-PACs.
 
Back
Top Bottom