• 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 retrial...

Peter King said:
Not wrong, you are trying to explain to a Dutch person, with a not dissimilar system as Italy has how appeals and higher appeals go and failing miserably.

In the Netherlands and Italy you can be tried and both the suspect and the prosecution (if they disagree with the result of the trial in verdict or punishment given) they can appeal the trial and the same case will be redone in a higher court in which both the prosecution and the suspect can make their case for acquittal or conviction. This is not a new trial/double jeopardy but the same case just in a higher court.

In the Netherlands and in Italy you can appeal your court case and bump it to a higher court, this is not double jeopardy because no new case if filed with the court hence no double jeopardy. It maybe different in the US but in the Netherlands and from what I know a verdict is final only if the entire appeals process have been run through or when no appeal is called for within the time frame within the appeal can be requested.

For example, in a murder case with case number 1001 (armed robbery where a bank employee is killed) a suspect is found guilty for manslaughter and robbery and sentenced to 12 years. The DA is of the opinion that their evidence warranted a conviction for murder and the 20 years they asked for and within the time period allowed for this (normally one waits until the written justification of the verdict has been filed with the court before doing so) the DA appeals.

Then the same case 1001 will be re-heard by a higher court, this time the court does agree with the DA and sentences the suspect to 18 years in jail. This time the suspect who was convicted disagrees and asks for review (cassatie in Dutch) by the highest court in the Netherlands. Only if this higher court agrees that the sentence is fair and just (they do not look at the evidence itself but at the process and the way the law was interpreted by the higher court) the case if done and the verdict final. But, for arguments sake the highest court finds that the lower court did not interpret the law correctly, they then vacate the sentence of 18 years and send the case back to the lower court. This time the trial of case 1001 ends in a the court this time finding manslaughter with aggravating circumstances and sentences the suspect again to 18 years. The suspect again appeals within the time period allowed for this and this time the supreme court decides that the court used the correct laws and descriptions to convict and the case if final.

At that moment and that moment alone the case with case number 1001 is over.


Now the other way around, in a murder case with case number 1002 (child kidnapping, rape and murder) a suspect is found guilty of child abduction, rape and murder and is sentenced to 18 years plus TBS (mental incarceration until the court is convinced that the mental disease that has lead to the suspect doing this crime is found to be cured). The DA is a happy camper and decides he will not appeal, he asked for 20 years plus TBS but can live with the 18 years given. This time the suspect appeals within the time allowed for appealing because he does not want to be sentenced to TBS (which could keep him in jail for life) and in a higher court is again found guilty and they again convict to 18 years and TBS. The suspect however says he is not crazy and does not want TBS on top of his 18 years in jail.

The supreme court reviews the case and disagrees with the suspect and says that the TBS sentence is upheld.

At that moment and that moment alone the case with case number 1002 is over.

That is how our and the Italian legal system works, it may not be your legal system but as before, this is still not a case of double jeopardy because the original case is still running.
Click to expand...

Double jeapordy is trying a person for the same crime after a person has been found innocent or has been acquitted. Double jeapordy is not dependent on case numbers. The moment someone is found innocent or is acquitted they may never be brought to court for the same crime.

The way that you have explained your system, and Italy's, shows that you have a system which is designed to get a person convicted and keep them convicted unless by some miracle they make it to the very highest court and THEY find the person innocent. Assuming of course the highest court doesn't find out that the lower court made some mistake in interpreting (which can be very subjective) law. In otherwords your court cases are all about the law and not about the innocense or guilt of a person.

I admit that your "double jeapordy" may have a different definition. But you will never convince me that it is a correct definition because frankly that definition just leads to people that were found innocent going back to prison for something that they were considered innocent of.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Double jeapordy is trying a person for the same crime after a person has been found innocent or has been acquitted. Double jeapordy is not dependent on case numbers. The moment someone is found innocent or is acquitted they may never be brought to court for the same crime.

The way that you have explained your system, and Italy's, shows that you have a system which is designed to get a person convicted and keep them convicted unless by some miracle they make it to the very highest court and THEY find the person innocent. Assuming of course the highest court doesn't find out that the lower court made some mistake in interpreting (which can be very subjective) law. In otherwords your court cases are all about the law and not about the innocense or guilt of a person.

I admit that your "double jeapordy" may have a different definition. But you will never convince me that it is a correct definition because frankly that definition just leads to people that were found innocent going back to prison for something that they were considered innocent of.
Click to expand...

There is also double jeopardy in the Netherlands, but a suspect is only guilty or innocent if all the appeals have been made final.

And it is not designed for finding people guilty or innocent but to get justice. If a case is blatant injustice in the USA by freeing someone of whom it is almost certain that he is guilty, than the police and the prosecution can not appeal the verdict and the killer (for example OJ Simpson). And the other way around is also possible, when a suspect is found guilty even though he is innocent, than he cannot appeal that verdict and have the injustice overthrown by an appeal.

Just because you think law is supposed to work in one way does not mean that the entire world will see it that way. I think a system in which both the prosecution and the suspect can appeal a verdict they find violates their feeling of justice is far superior than cases where a system that does not allow appeals.
 
Peter King said:
There is also double jeopardy in the Netherlands, but a suspect is only guilty or innocent if all the appeals have been made final.

And it is not designed for finding people guilty or innocent but to get justice. If a case is blatant injustice in the USA by freeing someone of whom it is almost certain that he is guilty, than the police and the prosecution can not appeal the verdict and the killer (for example OJ Simpson). And the other way around is also possible, when a suspect is found guilty even though he is innocent, than he cannot appeal that verdict and have the injustice overthrown by an appeal.

Just because you think law is supposed to work in one way does not mean that the entire world will see it that way. I think a system in which both the prosecution and the suspect can appeal a verdict they find violates their feeling of justice is far superior than cases where a system that does not allow appeals.
Click to expand...

Finding "justice"? Sorry but continueally hounding somone that has been found innocent is not "finding justice". I would rather have 10 guilty people be let free than to have 1 innocent person in prison.
 
NoC_T said:
What precisely would you suggest?

An Italian invasion of America?
Click to expand...

If you actually understood what I wrote you would realize i would more likely be for someone dressing up like batman and delivering her like a chinese businessman to the doorsteps of the italian commissioner gordon. That way Italy can screw up retrying her again and we can all have a good laugh. PASTA!
 
tererun said:
If you actually understood what I wrote you would realize i would more likely be for someone dressing up like batman and delivering her like a chinese businessman to the doorsteps of the italian commissioner gordon. That way Italy can screw up retrying her again and we can all have a good laugh. PASTA!
Click to expand...
That would pwn.

See, now I have something to hope for.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Finding "justice"? Sorry but continueally hounding somone that has been found innocent is not "finding justice". I would rather have 10 guilty people be let free than to have 1 innocent person in prison.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you think people who are being prosecuted for their crimes are being hounded , how about the families of the victims of OJ Simpson? How about the fact that they are being hounded by the injustice of the killer of their children/loved ones because some jury acquitted a guilty man? In the Netherlands people who have been found guilty will only find their verdict appealed if there is real doubt that the judge made the correct decision, not because they want to hound the person but because they want justice for all involved in the case.

In the Netherlands that verdict could almost never happened but if it did happen the prosecution would have the option of appealing the verdict and having the families have their justice.

Also, in our system people who were found guilty incorrectly have the chance to escape their unjust prison sentence because they have the appeals process.

A few names, OJ Simpson, Lorena Bobbit, R. Kelly, Casey Anthony, Rodney King officers and Robert Blake.

And then we are not even thinking about all the people who innocently sat in jail in the US because they could not appeal their verdicts even if there was real doubt they were guilty when the verdict was announced. In the Netherlands these people would just have appealed their verdict and would have had the chance to prove their innocence.
 
Peter King said:
I am sorry you think people who are being prosecuted for their crimes are being hounded , how about the families of the victims of OJ Simpson? How about the fact that they are being hounded by the injustice of the killer of their children/loved ones because some jury acquitted a guilty man? In the Netherlands people who have been found guilty will only find their verdict appealed if there is real doubt that the judge made the correct decision, not because they want to hound the person but because they want justice for all involved in the case.

In the Netherlands that verdict could almost never happened but if it did happen the prosecution would have the option of appealing the verdict and having the families have their justice.

Also, in our system people who were found guilty incorrectly have the chance to escape their unjust prison sentence because they have the appeals process.

A few names, OJ Simpson, Lorena Bobbit, R. Kelly, Casey Anthony, Rodney King officers and Robert Blake.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I would rather have 10 guilty people be set free than have 1 innocent sit in jail.

Peter King said:
And then we are not even thinking about all the people who innocently sat in jail in the US because they could not appeal their verdicts even if there was real doubt they were guilty when the verdict was announced. In the Netherlands these people would just have appealed their verdict and would have had the chance to prove their innocence.
Click to expand...

This is where you are wrong also. In the US a person can make an appeal on their conviction an unlimited number of times. From the way you explained your system a person can make an appeal only until there is one "final" verdict by the highest court.
 
I thought I read somewhere that our extradition treaty specifically doesn't apply in cases of double jeopardy.
 
Peter King said:
There is also double jeopardy in the Netherlands, but a suspect is only guilty or innocent if all the appeals have been made final.

And it is not designed for finding people guilty or innocent but to get justice. If a case is blatant injustice in the USA by freeing someone of whom it is almost certain that he is guilty, than the police and the prosecution can not appeal the verdict and the killer (for example OJ Simpson). And the other way around is also possible, when a suspect is found guilty even though he is innocent, than he cannot appeal that verdict and have the injustice overthrown by an appeal.

Just because you think law is supposed to work in one way does not mean that the entire world will see it that way. I think a system in which both the prosecution and the suspect can appeal a verdict they find violates their feeling of justice is far superior than cases where a system that does not allow appeals.
Click to expand...


What appeals process? Certainly sounds as if they don't have one at all.
 
vendur said:
What appeals process? Certainly sounds as if they don't have one at all.
Click to expand...

Amanda Knox was freed on appeal but the prosecutor went to their supreme court with the case when he appealed the verdict of releasing Knox and her friend.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
She is a US citizen and our double jeopardy should supersede the Italian law.
Click to expand...

I've got a funny feeling this is all by intent on the italian political front. Now they can have their kangaroo court in absentia trial and placate the British and italian bigots in their midst, while the rest of the world moves on.
 
vendur said:
I've got a funny feeling this is all by intent on the italian political front. Now they can have their kangaroo court in absentia trial and placate the British and italian bigots in their midst, while the rest of the world moves on.
Click to expand...
I agree this is the most likely scenario. They just want people off their back.
 
Your Star said:
Can't the US just say um **** you to Italy? Just don't extradite her.
Click to expand...

If she's found guilty in absentia, she can never go back to Italy, or any other country that has looser extradition treaties with Italy.

So it makes sense for her to fight it. Plus, her reputation is on the line.
 
The sad thing about this whole case is what it says about Knox's childish immaturity. If she did not commit the murder or help in doing so, she should've been 1000x more gracious to the Kercher family as well as been much more cooperative w/the police.

Doing cartwheels and smiling in court sends the wrong impression both to Italians and esp. the jurors.
 
solletica said:
I'd rather live in Italy than in a country where the government can simply label you a "terrorist" and then lock you up indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay, with no trial at all.
Click to expand...

Then move to Italy.
 
Last edited:
solletica said:
The sad thing about this whole case is what it says about Knox's childish immaturity. If she did not commit the murder or help in doing so, she should've been 1000x more gracious to the Kercher family as well as been much more cooperative w/the police.

Doing cartwheels and smiling in court sends the wrong impression both to Italians and esp. the jurors.
Click to expand...

Just how could she have been more cooperative with the police? Not gotten a lawyer?

The rest of what you said has no bearing on whether she committed the murder or not.
 
**** italy. Dont send her back. The italians refused to send back two italian marines that killed two indian fisherman. I say its just fair.
 
2 Dead Indian Fishermen, 2 Accused Italian Marines, A Diplomatic Row : The Two-Way : NPR

"India's Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the Italian ambassador not to leave the country after Rome refused to let the marines return to India to stand trial for the killings. The court had earlier allowed the marines to return to Italy to vote in last month's national elections after Ambassador Daniele Mancini assured Indian authorities that they would return by March 22 to stand trial. Earlier this week, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that won't happen. The Indian court has given Mancini until March 18 to respond."
 
Kal'Stang said:
Just how could she have been more cooperative with the police? Not gotten a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Should could act like she was concerned. Hello?! Emotional maturity 101.

Kal'Stang said:
The rest of what you said has no bearing on whether she committed the murder or not.
Click to expand...

It did have bearing on her getting convicted and locked up the first time, because as everyone knows, juries take into account people's reaction to events.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Then move to Italy.
Click to expand...

It's common knowledge that most of us would leave the US for Europe if we could easily acquire a work permit and residency there.

When you get a chance, look up "America love it or leave it" in the book of old, tired cliches.
 
solletica said:
Should could act like she was concerned. Hello?! Emotional maturity 101.



It did have bearing on her getting convicted and locked up the first time, because as everyone knows, juries take into account people's reaction to events.
Click to expand...
Please, tell us what would be approved behavior. Give examples. Be specific.
 
solletica said:
Should could act like she was concerned. Hello?! Emotional maturity 101.

It did have bearing on her getting convicted and locked up the first time, because as everyone knows, juries take into account people's reaction to events.
Click to expand...

And did you (and the jury) take into account the very fact that the murder happened 2 years before the trial? (she was arrested in 2007 and convicted in 2009) If I knew that I was innocent of a 2 year old murder charge I would try and put some levity in my life too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom