• 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

I don't think you're being entirely fair -- the US extradites both Britons and Americans to the UK all the time. There have been some high-profile cases, particularly to do with the IRA, that have aroused the ire of the UK about the UK-US extradition treaty, but if you read it, I think you'll agree it's pretty fair.

I agree with you that the US refusing to extradite some IRA members due to a very loose interpretation of what 'political refugee' means is pretty unstomachable. Equally, though, Britain flatly refuses to extradite murderers to the US unless the US promises not to go for the death penalty.
 

I agree. The trial was a complete circus, and I still haven't heard of any kind of valid evidence to prove that Amanda Knox had anything to do with the murder. I think it was the guy she took home from the bar (whatever his name was) who murdered her, and I think that Amanda and her boyfriend were probably doing their own thing at the time of the murder.
 

Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?

Why the double standard?
 
Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?

Why the double standard?
The Polanski thing is just a high-profile example that sometimes countries do not always honor these treaties, for whatever reason is important to them. This is not uncommon, and it happens in both directions. It is NOT solely an American, or French, or anybody else thing. And the treaties still stand and all countries that participate still extradite far more often than they don't.

Those who are claiming a potential breakdown of the whole treaty system are simply being naive.
 
Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?

Why the double standard?

Not really but he is an American citizen demanded to be returned to his country. He also violated the rights of another American citizen. If Amanda Knox was an Italian, it would be different since an Italian citizen's legal rights are not as important to America as the rights of an American citizens
 




I believe that's kind of what some people have thought about Bill Clinton.

But so far he's still walking around doing whatever he wants to do.
 

SOP for our so-called justice system.
 
I believe that's kind of what some people have thought about Bill Clinton.

But so far he's still walking around doing whatever he wants to do.

Not so for OJ though!
 

Y'see? This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread. You appear to need no evidence to convict Woody Allen, but you need loads of it for Knox. This argument has more than a touch of hypocrisy about it. What convicted Knox, I suspect, was her own evidence and testimonies that she changed, invented, forgot about and contradicted herself. She accused someone of committing the murder, which she 'witnessed', who was then proved to have a cast-iron alibi. I think she pretty much convicted herself.
 

Changing your story is not evidence of murder. There was no person (besides the originally accused) who pointed at her and said "she did it" either. She was probably scared out of her mind, being accused of murder in a foreign country with no family around to help her. God only knows how long they had interrogated the poor girl for.
 

Britain doesn't flatly refuse to extradite murderers to the US unless the US promises not to execute them, that it is European Law rather than national law, and is part of the European Convention on Human Rights signed in 1953 and which covers most of Europe, whilst many other countries without the death penalty themselves have a similar requirement.

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also don't agree the IRA cases were fair at all, especially given that the US has ignored all political boundaries since 9/11 and has extradited a lot of Britons on far lesser terrorist charges than the murder of a US soldiers. Indeed the current terrorism against the US could be just as easily labelled political and to do with US Forces occupying parts of the Middle East and Afghanistan, or US Foreign Policy in relation to certain regions and indeed Israel.

I also don't think the current extradition treaty with the US is fair and support it's reform.
 
Last edited:
Are you serious, and this is guy serious? That is NOT evidence beyond circumstantial. Lots of evidence? What a joke!

What Alan Dershowitz Professor of Law at Harvard University
 
The US should not extradite her. It would be double jeopardy. She was found not guilty and sent home, upon some Italian re-trial (of which she probably wasn't present for) they do find her guilty. In such a case the US should not extradite.
 
It is debatable whether this constitutes double jeopardy, as the Italian system is different to the US System an a final decision has not been reached, in what is appeals rather than separate cases.

 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?
 
Don't be an absurd -- what you're recommending is a recipe for ignorance and xenophobia. The wide world is a fascinating and beautiful place, and the vast majority of it does not lie within the boundaries of your country.

The wide world if the modern age is a place I have no use for. I am an Isolationist at heart and always will be. There's nothing outside the US that I need to see.

Perhaps wiser advice is, "Don't murder people", potentially with an added "Especially in foreign countries."

Don't leave the US and it's not an issue to begin with. Honestly, she shouldn't have gotten any aid from the US when she was tried originally but now that she's home there's no way the US should allow her to be sent back to a Socialist **** hole like Italy.
 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?

It might be subject to review, in terms of Italy and there is a long running campaign to further reform the current UK extradition arrangements with the US.
 

Speaking for everyone who lives outside the USA, I'd like to say I sincerely hope you take your own advice.
 
Speaking for everyone who lives outside the USA, I'd like to say I sincerely hope you take your own advice.

Trust me, I have no intent of ever leaving the US. As much if a **** hole as the US is, it's Eden compared to most of the rest of the world.
 
It might be subject to review, in terms of Italy and there is a long running campaign to further reform the current UK extradition arrangements with the US.

Broadly speaking, it might be less complicated for the US to just not have extradition treaties with anyone. Might not be long before other countries negate their treaties with the US, thinking it's just a one-way deal anyway.
 
I picked the first option because if our treaty requires us to extradite her, we should comply. If it doesn't require us to extradite her, then we shouldn't. (say, if double jeopardy is excluded from the treaty).

But the idea that we should just ignore the treaty because 'MURCA OORAH is ludicrous.
 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?
Technically, probably. On paper.

In the real world, probably not. It would be seen as just another minor squabble and the two countries would go on about their business of generally being friends and supporting each other. Happens quite often, actually.
 
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?

I don't see why.

it's been long established that countries do not have to extradict if doing so violates their own civil rights protections. it's been brought up dozens of times this thread, but Canada won't extradict to the united states anyone charged with a capital offense unless the death penalty is taken off the table. (personally, I'm of the opinion that if another country refuses to extradict to us on that grounds we should just say "OK, he's yours, I'm sure our capital murderers will make a wonderful addition to your society" congradulations on a new canadian national!")

Brazil will not extradict a Brazilian citizen nor the mother of a brazilian citizen under any circumstances.

treaties are broad like that.
 
Broadly speaking, it might be less complicated for the US to just not have extradition treaties with anyone. Might not be long before other countries negate their treaties with the US, thinking it's just a one-way deal anyway.

I am fine with that, it usual is a one way street any way, indeed we rarely seek extradition in the way US Authorities do and even in terms of terrorists have been unable to secure extradition from the US, and you are talking about individuals who have planted bombs in the UK and have murdered soldiers and police officers. It always was a one way street, and personally I think the French have the right idea, as they refuse to extradite any French nationals (outside of the EU).

It all changed after 9/11, and the current 2003 UK/US Extradition treaty is a joke, it provides far more protection from extradition for US Citizens than it does British Citizens and was originally designed to ensure that terrorists could be extradited ore quickly to the US although in recent years the US has increasingly tried to extradite people for white collar crimes and internet crimes who have never even set foot in America. These are mainly British Citizens whose crimes white collar crimes where carried out on British Soil, and surely a British Citizen carrying out a crime on British Soil should be subject to a British Court and not extradited to a country many have never even set foot in before.
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…