• 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 found guilty of murder again by Italian Court

Don't exaggerate. I'm not saying it's a complimentary nickname, but it's hardly a calumny. Are you forgetting that she's a convicted murderer? What does that say about her character?

what it says is that Italian courts-at least the ones involved in this incident-are incompetent
 
I am not sure what is dubious in the treaty,

A lower Italian court found her Not Guilty, In the US, It's over,
She can NEVER be placed in Jeopardy for that offense again.
Why would the US violate it's own Constitution, and place her in Jeopardy
a second time for the same offense?

er because Eurosocialists that despise America want to use this girl as a surrogate and scapegoat upon which to vent their hatred of American Primacy?
 
It's dubious as to whether the US can use 'Double Jeopardy'. Furthermore the whole Italian system is based around three courts or grades.

It's not dubious, it can clearly be evoked if desired.
 
It's not dubious, it can clearly be evoked if desired.

It is if you read the quote from US Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University in New York and this is backed up by Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University School of Law who shares Professor Julian Ku's view.

"For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations".

It's not for the US to judge this case, it's for the Italians and all any US Judge will look at is the basis of extradition and prima facie evidence. The US Authorities are not going to start criticising the Italian Courts or Judiciary, and in terms of the evidence beyond the initial prima facie evidence that is for the Italian Judicial System to decide.

Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: At this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial. It also should be noted that one of the problems with the 2003 US/UK Extradition Treaty, is that Prima Facie evidence had to be presented before the US Courts for extradition to the UK but the US could extradite at will without even presenting Prima Facie evidence before a British Court.
 
Last edited:
what it says is that Italian courts-at least the ones involved in this incident-are incompetent

If that's the way Americans feel then why did they sign an extradition treaty with Italy in the first place, and shouldn't this treaty now be scrapped.
 
er because Eurosocialists that despise America want to use this girl as a surrogate and scapegoat upon which to vent their hatred of American Primacy?

What utter rubbish. :shock:

I think you will find that other countries extradite to the US quite frequently based only on a basic outline of the case and often not even based on Prima Facie evidence. Then again I fully support Britain tightening some of it's extradition treaties and particularly the 2003 US/UK Treaty. Perhaps if the US does refuse a basic criminal extradition case, it may lead to a catalyst for change in relation to extradition between the US/UK, Italy/US and even EU Countries and the US and that would be something I would fully support. :)

In terms of the UK 2003 Extradition Treaty with the US, I would welcome the following -

1.) Someone should not be extradited to another country for actions that are not criminal in the UK.

2.) A basic case (Prima Facie) should be made to a British court before someone can be sent abroad to face trial in another country.

3.) If a significant part of the conduct that led to the alleged crime took place in the UK, then a British court should be able to decide if it is in the interests of justice to extradite.

Such changes to the extradition law may have prevented extradition to the US from Britain of individuals in recent years such as Giles Darby, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew, Christopher Tappin, Babar Ahmad, Talha Ahsan, David Carruthers, Ian Norris, Jeremy Crook and Peter Dicks. Whilst Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer extraditions to the US have thankfully been refused by Britain, and US extradition requests in relation to the extradition of Paul and Sandra Dunham and Dave Mcintyre are still pending. As for Australian national Julian Assange he remains hold up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with a 24 hour police guard payed for by the British taxpayer. Most of thes cases above being cases largely involving actions committed outside of the US, usually on British soil by British nationals or involved actions that aren't deemed criminal in the UK.

In terms of murder cases that have taken place in the US, there is usually no problem with extradition. Although if the US wants to start politicising murder cases, I am sure the Italian and other countries will be more than happy to reciprocate. It also should be noted that the US extradites more people than any other country in the world and if any one benefits from the current arrangements it's the US rather than countries such as Italy or the UK. :(

Extradition Watch | Liberty - protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

Amanda Knox Extradition Should Be Granted | New Republic
 
Last edited:
what it says is that Italian courts-at least the ones involved in this incident-are incompetent

That's a designation one could apply to courts in every jurisdiction; it isn't a good argument for ignoring verdicts and rendering extradition treaties void. If it were, there wouldn't be a treaty left standing between any two nations.
 
It is if you read the quote from US Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University in New York and this is backed up by Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University School of Law who shares Professor Julian Ku's view.

"For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations".

It's not for the US to judge this case, it's for the Italians and all any US Judge will look at is the basis of extradition and prima facie evidence. The US Authorities are not going to start criticising the Italian Courts or Judiciary, and in terms of the evidence beyond the initial prima facie evidence that is for the Italian Judicial System to decide.

Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: At this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial. It also should be noted that one of the problems with the 2003 US/UK Extradition Treaty, is that Prima Facie evidence had to be presented before the US Courts for extradition to the UK but the US could extradite at will without even presenting Prima Facie evidence before a British Court.

You don't have to rebuke the case here though. The contention would not be over the details of the trial as much as it would be that the State held two trials for the same crime.
 
If that's the way Americans feel then why did they sign an extradition treaty with Italy in the first place, and shouldn't this treaty now be scrapped.

Countries with extradition treaties with us will not extradite for cases involving capital punishment. I suppose the same questions could be asked.
 
Countries with extradition treaties with us will not extradite for cases involving capital punishment. I suppose the same questions could be asked.

We do extradite but with the premise that the person serves life and is not executed. I also wouldn't use that as an excuse if I was you, as our inability to extradite in terms of Capital Punishment is enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it serves 47 countries including the UK and Italy and over 820 million people, so using that would just mean the end of extradition to a good proportion of the world. Furthermore other countries without the death penalty outside of Europe such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan have exactly the same legislation in terms of capital punishment and torture.

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
That's a designation one could apply to courts in every jurisdiction; it isn't a good argument for ignoring verdicts and rendering extradition treaties void. If it were, there wouldn't be a treaty left standing between any two nations.

American citizen, piss poor Italian courts-our government should back our citizen especially since the Italians already have someone else convicted who was far far more likely the killer
 
What utter rubbish. :shock:

I think you will find that other countries extradite to the US quite frequently based only on a basic outline of the case and often not even based on Prima Facie evidence. Then again I fully support Britain tightening some of it's extradition treaties and particularly the 2003 US/UK Treaty. Perhaps if the US does refuse a basic criminal extradition case, it may lead to a catalyst for change in relation to extradition between the US/UK, Italy/US and even EU Countries and the US and that would be something I would fully support. :)

In terms of the UK 2003 Extradition Treaty with the US, I would welcome the following -

1.) Someone should not be extradited to another country for actions that are not criminal in the UK.

2.) A basic case (Prima Facie) should be made to a British court before someone can be sent abroad to face trial in another country.

3.) If a significant part of the conduct that led to the alleged crime took place in the UK, then a British court should be able to decide if it is in the interests of justice to extradite.

Such changes to the extradition law may have prevented extradition to the US from Britain of individuals in recent years such as Giles Darby, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew, Christopher Tappin, Babar Ahmad, Talha Ahsan, David Carruthers, Ian Norris, Jeremy Crook and Peter Dicks. Whilst Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer extraditions to the US have thankfully been refused by Britain, and US extradition requests in relation to the extradition of Paul and Sandra Dunham and Dave Mcintyre are still pending. As for Australian national Julian Assange he remains hold up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with a 24 hour police guard payed for by the British taxpayer. Most of thes cases above being cases largely involving actions committed outside of the US, usually on British soil by British nationals or involved actions that aren't deemed criminal in the UK.

In terms of murder cases that have taken place in the US, there is usually no problem with extradition. Although if the US wants to start politicising murder cases, I am sure the Italian and other countries will be more than happy to reciprocate. It also should be noted that the US extradites more people than any other country in the world and if any one benefits from the current arrangements it's the US rather than countries such as Italy or the UK. :(

Extradition Watch | Liberty - protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

Amanda Knox Extradition Should Be Granted | New Republic

HOw does this longwinded bit of poppycock even address what I said? the people most screaming for this girl's extradition are Eurosocialists who whine about America
 
We do extradite but with the premise that the person serves life and is not executed. I also wouldn't use that as an excuse if I was you, as our inability to extradite in terms of Capital Punishment is enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it serves 47 countries including the UK and Italy and over 820 million people, so using that would just mean the end of extradition to a good proportion of the world. Furthermore other countries without the death penalty outside of Europe such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan have exactly the same legislation in terms of capital punishment and torture.

I fear you do not see the point. A country does not have to extradite for Capital offenses. The governments can make agreements not to seek the death penalty and for many, not all, that is good enough. But the fact remains, written into the treaty are exceptions and capital offenses are one of those. There's no necessity to argue against evidence or proceedings. Capitol offenses are not the only legitimate reason to deny extradition either. Double jeopardy, for instance, is another legitimate exception.

But your statement was that the US shouldn't have signed the treaty if they did not want to follow it absolutely, overlooking that the contention here is not the evidence presented but rather the double jeopardy. If I am the to use your argument of absolute compliance with no exceptions, then that would mean that anyone refusing to extradite on grounds of death penalty should be equally questioned. But you don't question it, in fact you defend it.

This is merely highlighting the hypocricy of your argument. Nothing more.
 
I fear you do not see the point. A country does not have to extradite for Capital offenses. The governments can make agreements not to seek the death penalty and for many, not all, that is good enough. But the fact remains, written into the treaty are exceptions and capital offenses are one of those. There's no necessity to argue against evidence or proceedings. Capitol offenses are not the only legitimate reason to deny extradition either. Double jeopardy, for instance, is another legitimate exception.

But your statement was that the US shouldn't have signed the treaty if they did not want to follow it absolutely, overlooking that the contention here is not the evidence presented but rather the double jeopardy. If I am the to use your argument of absolute compliance with no exceptions, then that would mean that anyone refusing to extradite on grounds of death penalty should be equally questioned. But you don't question it, in fact you defend it.

This is merely highlighting the hypocricy of your argument. Nothing more.

If that's a problem then the US doesn't have to extradite with ECHR members, I have no problem with that. Just don't enter extradition agreements and then not adhere to them. In terms of the UK, I believe our treaty should be changed with the US, if you believe the treaty between the US and Italy should be changed or with ECHR members then so be it, but don't just moan about it, if you are not happy campaign to change the current arrangement, and don't just sit and whine.
 
Last edited:
HOw does this longwinded bit of poppycock even address what I said? the people most screaming for this girl's extradition are Eurosocialists who whine about America

Nobody is screaming for extradition, indeed the final verdict has yet to be announced in this case.

As for the extradition treaty, non compliance may indeed effect future extradition, as that is how extradition usually works.

Whilst as I have pointed out there are many people in the UK not happy with current extradition arrangements with the US, and I fully support Liberty and other such groups in their campaign to change the current extradition law.

It should be noted that between 2004 when the new US/UK extradition agreement came in to being in the UK and 2010 over 130 people were requested for extradition by the US, which is over 1.5 a month from the UK to the US and in terms of the whole of Europe this will be many many times more. The US also extradites a lot more from other countries than it receives extradition requests itself, and to be honest if this case leads to reform of the current system, helps campaign groups such as Liberty or makes people more aware of the current terrible legislation in respect of the UK and it's arrangement with the US then at least something positive has come from this.
 
Last edited:
It should be noted that the US extradited over 900 people last year. :shock:

More than 900 fugitives were extradited to the U.S. last year. Here's where they were hiding | Vocativ

Including 19 from the British Isles and 65 from Europe

extraditionBIGmap.jpg


Britons must be tried in Britain, extradition campaigners say - Telegraph
 
Last edited:
If that's a problem then the US doesn't have to extradite with ECHR members, I have no problem with that. Just don't enter extradition agreements and then not adhere to them. In terms of the UK, I believe our treaty should be changed with the US, if you believe the treaty between the US and Italy should be changed or with ECHR members then so be it, but don't just moan about it, if you are not happy campaign to change the current arrangement, and don't just sit and whine.

Again, you are missing the point. The treaty is fine, the treaty already makes exceptions for double jeopardy. As per the treaty, we can refuse extradition for cases involving double jeopardy.

The thing here is that you want to sit and tell America to universally accept extradition without exception while claiming that you have proper exception. It's a hypocritical argument, and invalid as it is illogical and irrational. Exceptions are written into the treaties. Death penalty is one exception, double jeopardy is another.
 
Again, you are missing the point. The treaty is fine, the treaty already makes exceptions for double jeopardy. As per the treaty, we can refuse extradition for cases involving double jeopardy.

The thing here is that you want to sit and tell America to universally accept extradition without exception while claiming that you have proper exception. It's a hypocritical argument, and invalid as it is illogical and irrational. Exceptions are written into the treaties. Death penalty is one exception, double jeopardy is another.

No it doesn't :doh :shock: :roll:

The Telegraph said:
Some lawyers and supporters of Ms Knox have argued that having been acquitted in 2011, she would be protected under the US Constitution from “double jeopardy” – being tried twice for the same charge.

Yet the US-Italy extradition treaty only protects Americans from extradition to face prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the US legal system. “This is not applicable in this situation,” said Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University.

For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations.

Her conviction would “easily satisfy the conditions of the treaty,” said Prof Ku. “So it would be hard for the US to explain why she should not be handed over”.

What next for Amanda Knox? - Telegraph

 
Amanda Knox found guilty of making NoC_T's penis turn cartwheels. World exclusive!
 
What utter rubbish. :shock:

I think you will find that other countries extradite to the US quite frequently based only on a basic outline of the case and often not even based on Prima Facie evidence. Then again I fully support Britain tightening some of it's extradition treaties and particularly the 2003 US/UK Treaty. Perhaps if the US does refuse a basic criminal extradition case, it may lead to a catalyst for change in relation to extradition between the US/UK, Italy/US and even EU Countries and the US and that would be something I would fully support. :)

In terms of the UK 2003 Extradition Treaty with the US, I would welcome the following -

1.) Someone should not be extradited to another country for actions that are not criminal in the UK.

2.) A basic case (Prima Facie) should be made to a British court before someone can be sent abroad to face trial in another country.

3.) If a significant part of the conduct that led to the alleged crime took place in the UK, then a British court should be able to decide if it is in the interests of justice to extradite.

Such changes to the extradition law may have prevented extradition to the US from Britain of individuals in recent years such as Giles Darby, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew, Christopher Tappin, Babar Ahmad, Talha Ahsan, David Carruthers, Ian Norris, Jeremy Crook and Peter Dicks. Whilst Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer extraditions to the US have thankfully been refused by Britain, and US extradition requests in relation to the extradition of Paul and Sandra Dunham and Dave Mcintyre are still pending. As for Australian national Julian Assange he remains hold up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with a 24 hour police guard payed for by the British taxpayer. Most of thes cases above being cases largely involving actions committed outside of the US, usually on British soil by British nationals or involved actions that aren't deemed criminal in the UK.

In terms of murder cases that have taken place in the US, there is usually no problem with extradition. Although if the US wants to start politicising murder cases, I am sure the Italian and other countries will be more than happy to reciprocate. It also should be noted that the US extradites more people than any other country in the world and if any one benefits from the current arrangements it's the US rather than countries such as Italy or the UK. :(

Extradition Watch | Liberty - protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

Amanda Knox Extradition Should Be Granted | New Republic

Good post. But I disagree with number 2. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

Some countries allow men to beat the crap out of their wives. Should they refuse extradition of a US citizen, convicted in the US for such a crime, because it is acceptable in THEIR country?

That is a double edged sword. When one is in a foreign country, they should abide by that country's laws or leave it.
 
No it doesn't :doh :shock: :roll:

Prohibited by our Constitution, just like your death penalty extradition. Didn't you try to use that as an excuse? It's funny how these excuses work for your side, but you refuse to allow our side to them.

Regardless, the US would need to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, which would be double jeopardy. Regardless, it's not open and shut and even the legal experts are not saying it's impossible, but rather that it would be challenging and have ramifications we'd rather not face. If she's depressed and suicidal, the excuse of extradition being incompatible with human rights could be used. If one really wanted. We'll find out in probably a year and a half when this mess is cleared up.

Regardless, double jeopardy is a miscarriage of justice and a violation of the rights of the individual.
 
Prohibited by our Constitution, just like your death penalty extradition. Didn't you try to use that as an excuse? It's funny how these excuses work for your side, but you refuse to allow our side to them.

Regardless, the US would need to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, which would be double jeopardy. Regardless, it's not open and shut and even the legal experts are not saying it's impossible, but rather that it would be challenging and have ramifications we'd rather not face. If she's depressed and suicidal, the excuse of extradition being incompatible with human rights could be used. If one really wanted. We'll find out in probably a year and a half when this mess is cleared up.

Regardless, double jeopardy is a miscarriage of justice and a violation of the rights of the individual.

Life is too short to deal with you. Try reading the quotes by your own legal experts in transnational law on the subject. :shock:

Julian Ku - US Professor of Transnational Law said:
Some lawyers and supporters of Ms Knox have argued that having been acquitted in 2011, she would be protected under the US Constitution from “double jeopardy” – being tried twice for the same charge.

Yet the US-Italy extradition treaty only protects Americans from extradition to face prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the US legal system. “This is not applicable in this situation,” said Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University.

For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations.

Her conviction would “easily satisfy the conditions of the treaty,” said Prof Ku. “So it would be hard for the US to explain why she should not be handed over”.
 
Whatever - life is too short to deal with you. Try reading the quotes by your own legal experts in transnational law on the subject.

I read the quotes by the selected experts you presented. It's as I said. At least try a bit of intellectual honesty in your arguments, a little will go a long way.
 
Good post. But I disagree with number 2. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

Some countries allow men to beat the crap out of their wives. Should they refuse extradition of a US citizen, convicted in the US for such a crime, because it is acceptable in THEIR country?

That is a double edged sword. When one is in a foreign country, they should abide by that country's laws or leave it.

If your taking about Prima Facie evidence, that's just the basics of the case and is presented to US Courts before people are extradited from the US and should be presented vice versa. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom