BREAKING: Amanda Knox cleared of murder charges

[Block]

So it doesn't sound to me like the Italian system is going to be all that much better than the American system, if you're worried about the lack of professionalism in juries and the vulnerability of the jury to media bias.

You are telling me that having two professionals in the room telling the jury member in the room on how to interpret the evidence and who the others have to explain their thought process to does not make a difference?

I think it corrupts the process. If you're told how to interpret the evidence by professionals, who have their own biases, then you're simply making it look unanimous, because most people are prone to follow the "expert" even if they don't agree.

[Simon_Jester]

So it doesn't sound to me like the Italian system is going to be all that much better than the American system, if you're worried about the lack of professionalism in juries and the vulnerability of the jury to media bias.

You are telling me that having two professionals in the room telling the jury member in the room on how to interpret the evidence and who the others have to explain their thought process to does not make a difference?

It will make a difference, but I'm not sure it will be as decisive as I think you'd want. Especially when the trial drags out over long periods, and the lay judges are fully exposed to any attempt by the media to convict in the court of public opinion.

Would it make a difference? It would almost have to. "Not all that much better" is not the same as "not at all better." But if the key point of concern is the use of ignorant people rendering decisions over the objections of professionals, I wouldn't be satisfied with the Italian system if I were you. I'd want a good deal more vetting, and probably fewer lay judges.

[Thanas]

It will make a difference, but I'm not sure it will be as decisive as I think you'd want. Especially when the trial drags out over long periods, and the lay judges are fully exposed to any attempt by the media to convict in the court of public opinion.

But on the other hand the potential for making mistakes or stuff like "we deliberated for 15 minutes then decided the guy looked guilty as hell" will not happen.

Would it make a difference? It would almost have to. "Not all that much better" is not the same as "not at all better." But if the key point of concern is the use of ignorant people rendering decisions over the objections of professionals, I wouldn't be satisfied with the Italian system if I were you. I'd want a good deal more vetting, and probably fewer lay judges.

I think having more judges would be better but this still strikes me as leaps and bounds above the US system, which makes all the crowing by the US of how oh so terrible the Italian system is doubly funny.

I think it corrupts the process. If you're told how to interpret the evidence by professionals, who have their own biases, then you're simply making it look unanimous, because most people are prone to follow the "expert" even if they don't agree.

Because listening to the experts is oh so terrible and totally worse than just following the charismatic layperson in the room.

[Simon_Jester]

The complaints I've heard by Americans about this case revolve around a specific thing- the claim that media bias influenced the trial.

The US system does take steps to limit the effect of media bias in long-running cases, although there are obvious problems with jury sequestration. The Italian system seems to do it only by (hopefully) having the two professional judges lecture the six laymen on their responsibilities. Maybe that works in general. In this case it made a farce of the first trial, with a good deal of incompetence all around.

If this happens often, then there is definitely something wrong with the Italian judiciary- there being problems with the US system that cause lots of bad trials doesn't mean other countries with lots of bad trials can't have problems too.

If it doesn't happen often, then maybe there is no problem, or only a small problem. I don't know.

[Thanas]

The complaints I've heard by Americans about this case revolve around a specific thing- the claim that media bias influenced the trial.

The US system does take steps to limit the effect of media bias in long-running cases, although there are obvious problems with jury sequestration. The Italian system seems to do it only by (hopefully) having the two professional judges lecture the six laymen on their responsibilities. Maybe that works in general. In this case it made a farce of the first trial, with a good deal of incompetence all around.

I have yet to see evidence that the media was the deciding influence on the trial and not the (now declared insufficient) DNA evidence, numerous lies and contradictions, false accusation, bizarre courtroom behavior etc. that were deciding factors here. The media may have been icing on the cake, but that is about all of it IMO.