Amanda Knox Double Jeopardy

[monovillage]

No I wouldn't, for insulting Mohammed no

for killing someone yes

So it's not cut and dried and the US authorities should use their discretion and judgement on whether to return Amanda Knox to Italy?

 

[lotus503]

So it's not cut and dried and the US authorities should use their discretion and judgement on whether to return Amanda Knox to Italy?

No I think its pretty cut and dry. they should upon request extradite her.

because we talking about murder which is pretty much illegal everywhere.

 

[Doppel]

So if terrorists that comitted terrorist acts in the US made their way back to the middle east - say Afghanistan - they were tried and found to be heros there.


If the United States wanted to try them for mass murders, Afghanistan should tell them to pound sand since they are an Afghanistan citizen, and they are no longer in the United States.

Absolutely. Why would Afghanistan flout its own standards to satisfy another nation?

Of course the US is free to launch cruise missiles in response.

Italy can do what it wants and the US should do what it thinks is right. Italy will do and can do nothing.

 

[monovillage]

No I think its pretty cut and dry. they should upon request extradite her.

because we talking about murder which is pretty much illegal everywhere.

You used your own judgement that it's acceptable for some laws to be ignored in an extradition case. I see no reason for a US court to summarily send her back to face a double jeopardy trial in Italy.

As far as Italy's justice system is concerned remember they're the ones that convicted scientists of manslaughter for not predicting earthquakes.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012...scientists-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/

 

[Tango]

You used your own judgement that it's acceptable for some laws to be ignored in an extradition case. I see no reason for a US court to summarily send her back to face a double jeopardy trial in Italy.

As far as Italy's justice system is concerned remember they're the ones that convicted scientists of manslaughter for not predicting earthquakes.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012...scientists-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/

Nope. They have condemned them for pretending they could, thus giving people advice which caused several casualties.

Both these cases have been incredible examples of the failure of the American media to report about overseas events.

 

[Zargon]

So if terrorists that comitted terrorist acts in the US made their way back to the middle east - say Afghanistan - they were tried and found to be heros there.


If the United States wanted to try them for mass murders, Afghanistan should tell them to pound sand since they are an Afghanistan citizen, and they are no longer in the United States.

kinda like how pakistan hid OBL?

we should not send her back for this trial

the evidence they have is utter shit(and mostly circumstantial), the only 'witness' is a unreliable POS thats a felon in mulitple countries

 

[Pens1566]

Yeah, I doubt she gets extradited. The "case" against her was lousy by US standards.

 

[Texashiker]

No I think its pretty cut and dry. they should upon request extradite her.

She was found not guilty.

As a US citizen on US soil, she is protected from double jeopardy.

 

[juiio]

You used your own judgement that it's acceptable for some laws to be ignored in an extradition case. I see no reason for a US court to summarily send her back to face a double jeopardy trial in Italy.

Italy won't seek for her to be extradited before the trial.

Further, extradition has nothing to do how our justice system works. Extradition is based on if the conviction is lawful under the legal system of the country with which you have a treaty. If she loses in the upcoming second stage, it will be a lawful conviction under the Italian legal system. Constitutional rights have to do with our own State, not foreign States.

My guess for what will happen is that she will be convicted in absentee. The US and Italy will then agree to let her serve her time in the US. She'll get credit for time served, and will spend relatively little (for a convicted murderer) time in prison before being released on good behavior.

 

[monovillage]

Nope. They have condemned them for pretending they could, thus giving people advice which caused several casualties.

Both these cases have been incredible examples of the failure of the American media to report about overseas events.

From the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/22/scientists-convicted-manslaughter-earthquake

Scientists convicted of manslaughter for failing to warn of earthquake

A court in L'Aquila, Italy, has sentenced defendants to six years in prison despite lack of any reliable way to predict quakes

An Italian court convicted seven scientists and experts of manslaughter on Monday for failing to adequately warn citizens before an earthquake struck L'Aquila in central Italy in 2009, killing more than 300 people.

The court in L'Aquila sentenced the defendants to six years in prison. Each is a member of the country's Grand Commission on High Risks.

 

[Tango]

Italy won't seek for her to be extradited before the trial.
Extradition is based on if the conviction is lawful under the legal system of the country with which you have a treaty. If she loses in the upcoming second stage, it will be a lawful conviction under the Italian legal system.

Just a note: the upcoming stage will be the third. She was found guilty in the first, and then not guilty in the second. The third is the definitive one.

 

[Tango]

From the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/22/scientists-convicted-manslaughter-earthquake

It's also wrong. They were convicted of telling people that "there was no reason to sleep outside" and that "it was perfectly safe to go home and have a glass of wine".

Very very few media outlets got it right outside of Italy, probably because the sensationalized version sells better. If you are interested later I can post a link to the few articles (not in italian, for example from the academic journal Nature) that did report accurately the story.

Nature 477, September 2011 if you have access to academic literature.

 

[juiio]

Just a note: the upcoming stage will be the third. She was found guilty in the first, and then not guilty in the second. The third is the definitive one.

No, they are redoing the second stage.

 

[waggy]

She was found not guilty.

As a US citizen on US soil, she is protected from double jeopardy.

they were just discussing this on one of the court TV segment shows (been watching the jodie areis trial).

She US could (and most likely will) claim this falls under the second jeopardy. The fact the first trial was NOT in the use does not matter. It was overturned and she was released.


Of course this depends on how good her lawyers are heh.

 

[Tango]

No, they are redoing the second stage.

Oh now I see: the Cassazione have already found procedural mistakes in the second stage and are moving to a Corte d'appello (in Florence I see).

 

[Texashiker]

She US could (and most likely will) claim this falls under the second jeopardy. The fact the first trial was NOT in the use does not matter. It was overturned and she was released.


Of course this depends on how good her lawyers are heh.

This would be like a US citizen posting something on the net that insults some monarch in the middle east. So what if the monarch is offended, the person posting the material is on US soil and is protected.

Amanda is being accused of committing a crime, but she is also protected by her rights.

Laws can not subvert a persons rights.

If the law violates a persons rights, the law is no more then ink on paper.

 

[blackangst1]

This would be like a US citizen posting something on the net that insults some monarch in the middle east. So what if the monarch is offended, the person posting the material is on US soil and is protected.

Amanda is being accused of committing a crime, but she is also protected by her rights.

Laws can not subvert a persons rights.

If the law violates a persons rights, the law is no more then ink on paper.

Constitutional rights do not extend beyond the borders of the US. I know you know this.

This would be like a US citizen posting something on the net that insults some monarch in the middle east. So what if the monarch is offended, the person posting the material is on US soil and is protected.

In this case they are protected because said person is IN the USA. Amanda was NOT in the US therefore subject to the laws of whatever country she was in. Now, in your example, had this person said those things while IN the country, thats a different story.

Edit: Having traveled quite a bit overseas I see this all the time. Jackass Americans thinking US laws protect them while in foreign countries. Sorry, Charlie, it doesnt work that way.

 

[Texashiker]

Edit: Having traveled quite a bit overseas I see this all the time. Jackass Americans thinking US laws protect them while in foreign countries. Sorry, Charlie, it doesnt work that way.

Where is Amanda at right now?

And as such, are not her rights protected?

 

[Doppel]

Italy won't seek for her to be extradited before the trial.

Further, extradition has nothing to do how our justice system works. Extradition is based on if the conviction is lawful under the legal system of the country with which you have a treaty. If she loses in the upcoming second stage, it will be a lawful conviction under the Italian legal system. Constitutional rights have to do with our own State, not foreign States.

My guess for what will happen is that she will be convicted in absentee. The US and Italy will then agree to let her serve her time in the US. She'll get credit for time served, and will spend relatively little (for a convicted murderer) time in prison before being released on good behavior.

No chance. I tell you now a conviction in Italy is immaterial. Knox ONLY serves time if she volunteers to return to Italy. The US will have no part in it, no time here and no extradition.

 

[waggy]

Constitutional rights do not extend beyond the borders of the US. I know you know this.



In this case they are protected because said person is IN the USA. Amanda was NOT in the US therefore subject to the laws of whatever country she was in. Now, in your example, had this person said those things while IN the country, thats a different story.

Edit: Having traveled quite a bit overseas I see this all the time. Jackass Americans thinking US laws protect them while in foreign countries. Sorry, Charlie, it doesnt work that way.

you are trying to compare two diffrent items in things happening.


no the cosntiution does not protect you when you travel overseas. you have to obey the laws of the land.

She is IN US now. she is protected UNDER use laws. one is double jeopardy. she has already faced trial once and released. uner US LAW she is done. they can't do it.

NO WAY will the us send her to italy. she has to many arguments that she can use to fight it.

now does that mean that Italy can't find her guilty still? sure they can she just can't leave the us heh

 

[monovillage]

It's also wrong. They were convicted of telling people that "there was no reason to sleep outside" and that "it was perfectly safe to go home and have a glass of wine".

Very very few media outlets got it right outside of Italy, probably because the sensationalized version sells better. If you are interested later I can post a link to the few articles (not in italian, for example from the academic journal Nature) that did report accurately the story.

Nature 477, September 2011 if you have access to academic literature.

Thank you, I already knew the facts in the case due to Dr. Pielke's and Dr. Curry's coverage of it. I do appreciate your referral.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/10/mischaracterizations-of-laquila-lawsuit.html
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/23/italian-seismologists-guilty/

 

[juiio]

She is IN US now. she is protected UNDER use laws. one is double jeopardy. she has already faced trial once and released. uner US LAW she is done. they can't do it.

In 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights did not even protect citizens from state governments. It wasn't until the Incorporation doctrine that the bill of rights applied to state governments also. To suggest that it currently applies to foreign governments is a stretch. It would probably have to go before the Supreme Court.

 

[lotus503]

You used your own judgement that it's acceptable for some laws to be ignored in an extradition case. I see no reason for a US court to summarily send her back to face a double jeopardy trial in Italy.

As far as Italy's justice system is concerned remember they're the ones that convicted scientists of manslaughter for not predicting earthquakes.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012...scientists-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/

absolutely I see a difference between murder and insulting a religious deity.

 

[Tango]

Thank you, I already knew the facts in the case due to Dr. Pielke's and Dr. Curry's coverage of it. I do appreciate your referral.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/10/mischaracterizations-of-laquila-lawsuit.html
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/23/italian-seismologists-guilty/

But then you know, from your own link that:

Prosecutors didn’t charge commission members with failing to predict the earthquake but with conducting a hasty, superficial risk assessment and presenting incomplete, falsely reassuring findings to the public.

The verdict was sensationalized outside of Italy completely distorting what it was about. Also, the sentence was symbolic, in the sense that they won't face a single hour of jail time. The purpose was obtaining interdiction for them from holding in the future public policy positions similar to those where they failed. I don't remember this rather crucial element being explained in the media, where you saw instead quite ridiculous connections with the biography of Galileo (!!?) being made.

 

[Jaskalas]

Constitutional rights do not extend beyond the borders of the US. I know you know this.

Then lucky for her, she is within US borders. I would see the treaty burn before we violate the Bill of Rights.