• 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


I can tell you exactly what Euro-Lefties are. They are mostly frustrated pretend intellectuals who still mourn for the good old days of the Soviet Union and just cannot understand how the U.S. triumphed and the Socialist Ideal died a pathetic death, only to be replaced by a despicable oligarchy that makes war on homosexuals and rock and roll singers. Never mind, you always have The Guardian.

The Guardian has turned itself into a hub of unrestrained anti-Americanism - The Commentator
 

If you look at the thread though the quotes are from CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and the Daily Mail, there is only perhaps one aricle from the Guardian. So I suggest you double check your facts. :roll:
 

You sure seem to be talking about a treat you apparently haven't read. I didn't know so I looked it up.

From the text of the treaty between the US and Italy: "Article 6, provides that extradition shall be denied when the person sought has been in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense."
 
Do you ever post links from any source praising the United States - or at least being neutral?

No, I thought not. You have a position and then seek desperately to find anything to support it.
 
And then there's than nonsense about two languages having to be used, even when unnecessary. And the 'Canadian Content' requirement for your entertainment media. There's probably more, but that's off the top of my head.

I don't see how these and what you call the "welfare state" are in anyway infringements on individual freedom. In fact, all of these were brought into being by democratically elected governments, freely chosen by the people who cared to exercise their individual freedom to vote. I don't speak or read French to any great extent, but I'm not less free and in fact I haven't spoken French since highschool.

You don't think the US has a pretty solid "welfare state" too? Think again. As for "socialized medicine", freely chosen by the electorate decades ago and individuals also purchase their own supplemental insurance coverage in order to freely choose additional services and coverages they'd like.

Gay people can get married anywhere in Canada - how about the US? Gay people can adopt children anywhere in Canada - how about the US? A pregnant woman can get an abortion anywhere in Canada, without government interference or mandated laws or guidelines infringing on her choice, provided she and her doctor believe it's the right medical course of action for her - how about the US? I'm free to walk the street, even at night, in the largest city in Canada, the fourth largest city in North America, without fear - how about the US?

I could go on, but the point I'm simply trying to make is that individual freedom comes in many forms and covers many issues - and the US doesn't have a monopoly on freedom, by any means, even if America is the greatest nation on the planet.
 

I don't think any people, any nation, has a monopoly on selective outrage. Just look at the bleetings from the political left and right in the US on a daily basis and you can see tons of selective outrage.
 
No, they refused to extradite him because A) they are France, B) it gave them a chance to stick their finger in the eye of America, C) he's famous, and D) rape of a 13 year old girl is no big deal in that cesspool of a country.

Actually, the simple fact he's a French citizen - dual citizenship - and he was actually detained on the international warrant in Switzerland, so your main argument would be with the Swiss - however, just like Knox is an American citizen and the US will protect her interests against what it sees as injustice, so too will France protect its citizen against what it sees as injustice. It's really pretty simple and there's no need for nation bashing because of this.
 

The US justice system has it's flaws but limiting how many times a prosecutor can bring a trial against someone for the same offence isn't one of them. With the power of the state behind the prosecutor they couldn't stand up to the appeals process in an Italian court of law. If you're going to blame anyone blame the prosecutor that couldn't prove to the appellate court that the verdict should stick. That doesn't mean he should have the ability to bring a trial until he gets the verdict he wants.
 
If Italy issues an extradition request, then it's not only legal considerations that come into play. She has popular support and a couple of high-placed politicians right now, but then future cooperation from Italy/Europe on American extradition requests has to be taken into account. I reckon it's 50/50 on her being sent back. Eventually.
 




If the USA doesn't send this young lady to Italy when Italy asks for her extradition, the USA can probably forget about Italy ever sending anyone to the USA.




"What goes around, comes around."
 

I don't think so honestly. She would of been easily extradited if this was the first case but there's no way the US extradites someone that was already released on the same charges. L
 




And CIA torturers.

Let's not forget them.
 
The "new evidence" defense for this current trial and guilty verdict has been brought up numerous times in this thread. I (and others) have asked exactly what this "new evidence" was. If that question has been answered, I have missed it. Could someone please enlighten me about this new evidence please?
 

There was no new evidence because this was not a new trial, but the completion of the appeal process from the original trial. The acquittal came as a result of the appeal of the first verdict. The new guilty verdict comes as a result of the prosecution appealing the acquittal, due to incorrect procedure. As I said previously, this is not a double jeopardy case.
 

the incompetent prosecution was the laughing stock of the world and the Italians want to save face
 

I've already pointed out that this isn't a double jeopardy case. Guess you weren't paying attention.
 

I understand the difference quite well, thanks. I also understand context, as in your original post. You are now backpedaling. :shrug:


And...? Yes, he fled before sentence was pronounced, and was not extradited back to the US by France, which is the entire basis for using the Polanski case as a rebuttal when some here toss out the old "America has to honor extradition treaties with European countries because if they don't, European countries won't honor extradition treaties with America". The fact is that some European countries have NOT honored extradition treaties with America, and the world has not come to an end. Duh.

So we can play semantic games and we can play "gotcha" if you want - the basic facts and outcomes are the same. Had your purpose been a discussion of the issues rather than a blatant attack on me personally, that would have been evident.

You appear to be the one who is playing semantic games, and I am not the one who accused you of "having a burr up your butt". At any rate, my side of this conversation is over.
 
I've already pointed out that this isn't a double jeopardy case. Guess you weren't paying attention.

And since there is disagreement on that point, the treaty you didn't read is highly relevant.
 
How many people are currently detained, protesting innocence...and how many of you want them out walking the streets...

Italian legal system is different from US and I'm sure different from other systems, but if you are in Italy you are judged by Italian judicial criteria. If you don't want that, don't go there.
 
In those countries where Double Jeopardy is not an absolute principle, it is nevertheless extremely difficult for the state to make a case unless new evidence comes to light.
Not even if new evidence is unearthed?

I think there are a couple of problerms with retrying the case - even with new evidence. First is the whole power of the state issue. A successful criminal defense costs hundreds of thousands or in some cases millions of dollars. Very few people can afford that. Even fewer can afford that twice. It's inherently unfair to the defendant.

Secondly new evidence isn't really new. By the time a case goes to trial several years have gone by and it may be years more until the new evidence is unearthed. That much time has to make the new evidence suspect.
 

Those are both reasonable objections, although I'd point out that criminal defence costs are not as high as you quote everywhere.
 
I see. All right, what exactly is that "new" evidence that the Italian authorities have suddenly discovered? Please, share your knowledge and information with us.

I'm speaking in generalities. Have no idea about the specifics of this case, so no comment.
 
No, they refused to extradite him because A) they are France, B) it gave them a chance to stick their finger in the eye of America, C) he's famous, and D) rape of a 13 year old girl is no big deal in that cesspool of a country.

He is a French citizen.. they do not extradite their own citizens.
 

Canada's system is probably more pragmatic and fair than the American system, but Americans seem to think that our constitution was written by the hand of Jesus himself so you'll never get them to admit that.

I never understood the cult-like reverence we have for our founding fathers and the constitution. It's just a legal document, for goodness sake. We are capable of making mistakes just like any other country.
 
But they got a conviction the first time around... and all that is in the appeal process now, with the first appeal freeing her on technicalities but the second appeal agreeing with the original conviction.

Send us Polanski, and then we can talk.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…