Archive

Amanda Knox, retrial and possible extradition.

  • LJ
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Cliffs- Amanda Knox was acquitted of the charges of murder in a 2007 killing of her roommate in Italy. The Italian supreme court rejected that ruling and has ordered a retrial.

    Do you think that the U.S. should deny extradition when it comes to that? Italy retrying the case violates her American right that she cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

    Honestly, I think that the U.S. should definitely deny extradition while she is on American soil. For her that becomes like another small sentence, because if the U.S. basically grants her asylum, she can never leave the country again.

    In the case of asylum, does Italy create an international incident and come try to get her?
  • FatHobbit
    I'm no legal expert but I think the US should deny extradition for the reasons you said. I didn't realize she was in the states when I heard they wanted to retry her and I thought why the fuck is she still in Italy after all that?
  • Fly4Fun
    I'm not well versed on the subject, but I would have to imagine the US extraditing Knox to Italy for that purpose could easily be construed as her being subject for the same offense twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. And it wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the US Fed Gov't would be the actor doing that as it would require them to actually extradite her.

    And while I don't have any procedural or substantive knowledge about the Italian courts, I've heard this whole process referred to many times as "Kangaroo Courts."

    I don't think she should be extradited on a constitutional basis. But that's my fairly uninformed opinion because of limited knowledge regarding the situation and law.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Does the practical matter that she was likely involved in murder play into the decision?
  • FatHobbit
    queencitybuckeye;1414670 wrote:Does the practical matter that she was likely involved in murder play into the decision?
    I did not follow the trial at all so I don't have an opinion on her innocence, but was she not found innocent?
  • queencitybuckeye
    FatHobbit;1414676 wrote:I did not follow the trial at all so I don't have an opinion on her innocence, but was she not found innocent?
    Her conviction was reversed. However, OJ Simpson was also acquitted and I'm as sure as I can be that he turned two people into human Pez dispensers.

    I just wonder if the likelihood of her possible involvment in the matter should be considered by those American authorites that would help determine whether should be returned. My opinion is yes.
  • LJ
    queencitybuckeye;1414682 wrote:Her conviction was reversed. However, OJ Simpson was also acquitted and I'm as sure as I can be that he turned two people into human Pez dispensers.
    Personally I think the Guede guy raped her and killed her. His conviction has stood through all appeals. I think it's just a witch hunt on the American and the guy who dared sleep with an American.
  • FatHobbit
    queencitybuckeye;1414682 wrote:Her conviction was reversed. However, OJ Simpson was also acquitted and I'm as sure as I can be that he turned two people into human Pez dispensers.
    I do think OJ was guilty, but I don't think he should be retried.
    queencitybuckeye;1414682 wrote:I just wonder if the likelihood of her possible involvment in the matter should be considered by those American authorites that would help determine whether should be returned. My opinion is yes.
    I'm not sure guilt or innocence should be considered if they are using double jeopardy as their defense.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    The amount of evidence against OJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that of Knox. She might be quite a bit weird and possibly was involved (although the Italian government provided very little evidence of such), but it isn't as if the Italian kangaroo court didn't have the opportunity to actually show she was guilty of charged. The entire case was a keystone kop routine, and embarrassed most Italians with its buffoonery. Not sure subjecting her to more of the same would result in any truth or justice.
  • queencitybuckeye
    FatHobbit;1414700 wrote:I do think OJ was guilty, but I don't think he should be retried.
    Nor do I, but if the crimes took place in countries that don't have or have different double jeopardy rules, have at it.


    I'm not sure guilt or innocence should be considered if they are using double jeopardy as their defense.
    If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court".
  • WebFire
    LJ;1414651 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Do you think that the U.S. should deny extradition when it comes to that? Italy retrying the case violates her American right that she cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
    That is a right of an American in the American court system. But do our American rights overrule our actions outside of the US? Is this a case of "commit a crime on international soil, follow their rules"?
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court"."

    Not when I'm back in the U.S. it doesn't.

    To answer the original poster's question - no, the U.S. should not extradite her and I doubt Italy will beclown itself more by asking for such. They had 4 years to take care of the situation and looked like idiots.
  • WebFire
    queencitybuckeye;1414711 wrote:Nor do I, but if the crimes took place in countries that don't have or have different double jeopardy rules, have at it.





    If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court".
    This. Didn't see this posted when I posted mine.

    Not sure of the answer, just provoking thought on it.
  • WebFire
    Manhattan Buckeye;1414714 wrote:"If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court"."

    Not when I'm back in the U.S. it doesn't.
    So if you commit a crime on another country, as long as you make it back to U.S. soil, you are good?
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    It bloody is if I'm found not guilty/innocent and allowed to go back.

    What's the other answer? That Italy (or some other banana republic) can keep demanding extradition time and time and time (add infinity) over again because they can't get their $&%^ together?

    Have you followed this case at all?
  • queencitybuckeye
    Manhattan Buckeye;1414714 wrote:"If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court"."

    Not when I'm back in the U.S. it doesn't.
    Are you saying should I commit a crime abroad and manage to return to the U.S., they should have no jurisdiction and I'm off the hook?
  • LJ
    WebFire;1414716 wrote:So if you commit a crime on another country, as long as you make it back to U.S. soil, you are good?

    This is not the case. She was already tried and acquitted.
  • LJ
    queencitybuckeye;1414720 wrote:Are you saying should I commit a crime abroad and manage to return to the U.S., they should have no jurisdiction and I'm off the hook?

    Again not even the same.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Manhattan Buckeye;1414719 wrote:It bloody is if I'm found not guilty/innocent and allowed to go back.

    What's the other answer? That Italy (or some other banana republic) can keep demanding extradition time and time and time (add infinity) over again because they can't get their $&%^ together?

    Have you followed this case at all?
    Yes, it's highly unlikely she was NOT involved in the crime, notwithstanding the quality of the court system there. Two different issues.
  • FatHobbit
    queencitybuckeye;1414711 wrote:Nor do I, but if the crimes took place in countries that don't have or have different double jeopardy rules, have at it.

    If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court".
    WebFire;1414712 wrote:That is a right of an American in the American court system. But do our American rights overrule our actions outside of the US? Is this a case of "commit a crime on international soil, follow their rules"?
    WebFire;1414716 wrote:So if you commit a crime on another country, as long as you make it back to U.S. soil, you are good?
    I definitely agree that if you are in a foreign country that their laws apply. But IMHO if they try you and find you innocent and you make it back to US soil you should not be extradited.
  • queencitybuckeye
    LJ;1414724 wrote:Again not even the same.
    How so?
  • WebFire
    LJ;1414723 wrote:This is not the case. She was already tried and acquitted.
    So what? She didn't commit the crime here. You are using U.S. law in another country.
  • WebFire
    FatHobbit;1414726 wrote:I definitely agree that if you are in a foreign country that their laws apply. But IMHO if they try you and find you innocent and you make it back to US soil you should not be extradited.
    And I'm not saying that is wrong. I don't really know what I think yet. My biggest question is whether our law of not being tried twice applies since the crime was committed somewhere where that is not a protected right.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    WebFire;1414730 wrote:So what? She didn't commit the crime here. You are using U.S. law in another country.
    And we are using U.S. law in our country. We don't extradite our citizens based on a whim. No other country does - why should we be different?
  • WebFire
    Manhattan Buckeye;1414733 wrote:And we are using U.S. law in our country. We don't extradite our citizens based on a whim. No other country does - why should we be different?
    I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it on a whim. I am merely asking if our law protects us from international or other country laws, when the crime was not committed here.