Knox convicted for second time

[Thanas]

I understand how the European system approaches appeals- I just think that it's unfair to defendants to handle appeals as the Italian courts are handling them in this case. The point of appeals courts is to correct mistakes made by the lower courts on matters of procedure, or possibly on matters of law or evidence ignored by the lower court.

And this is exactly what is happening here. (Wrongly?) applied legal judgement is still a matter of law.

[Rogue 9]

Are you trying to claim that because they let her leave that the trial and appeals process was over?

No, I'm trying to understand why they'd be so pants-on-head retarded as to allow a suspect in an apparently ongoing trial to flee the country.

[Thanas]

Are you trying to claim that because they let her leave that the trial and appeals process was over?

No, I'm trying to understand why they'd be so pants-on-head retarded as to allow a suspect in an apparently ongoing trial to flee the country.

Because the USA went apeshit and put a lot of pressure on them, plus because they had declared her to be not guilty of the charges in a trial. As soon as she was declared to be innocent there was no way to hold her on legal grounds.

[Grumman]

Yes. This is the case in nearly all European justice systems. The US is quite alone with their silly double jeopardy rule.

I agree with you about a lot of things, but not this. You cannot have an adequate justice system without following the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and if you've already acquitted someone once that doubt must exist

No. That doubt existed with regards to the evidence available at the time. At least as I understand it, in the US it's impossible to retry that person even if evidence surfaces that makes it physically impossible for the guy not to be guilty.

In my country, the introduction of "fresh and compelling" new evidence is an exception to our laws against double jeopardy. But that's not what is being done here.

It also violates their right to a speedy trial, and removes the innocent person's ability to just move on with their life after the prosecution took their best shot and failed.

I don't see how 'speedy trial' has anything to do with whether or not the prosecution gets more than one go at proving the suspect is guilty. Besides, the (allegedly) innocent person still gets to move on with their life. Prosecution merely gets more than one bullet.

It's been five years. How long should Amanda Knox have the sword of Damocles hanging over her head? How many bullets should the prosecution get?

[Flagg]

It's an appeals process you idiot. Appeals can go on for decades in the states. This whole "raaaaar double jeopardy!!!" stuff is a fucking red herring.

[Thanas]

It's been five years. How long should Amanda Knox have the sword of Damocles hanging over her head? How many bullets should the prosecution get?

They get as many appeals as the law allows.

I find it ironic that this is supposed to be a great injustice yet within the US people wait for decades on death row not knowing whether they shall live or die. Compared to that the italian system is very benign.

It's an appeals process you idiot. Appeals can go on for decades in the states. This whole "raaaaar double jeopardy!!!" stuff is a fucking red herring.

Indeed.

[Grumman]

It's been five years. How long should Amanda Knox have the sword of Damocles hanging over her head? How many bullets should the prosecution get?

They get as many appeals as the law allows.

I didn't ask how many they do get, but how many they should get. And I say the answer is zero: absent that "fresh and compelling" evidence, once the prosecution fails once, that should be it.

I find it ironic that this is supposed to be a great injustice yet within the US people wait for decades on death row not knowing whether they shall live or die. Compared to that the italian system is very benign.

The American death penalty is a complete clusterfuck, but at least once you're off death row you don't have to worry about some judge deciding "Nope, you're guilty again. You're back on death row."

It's an appeals process you idiot. Appeals can go on for decades in the states. This whole "raaaaar double jeopardy!!!" stuff is a fucking red herring.

Indeed.

The appeals process should be a ratchet. It should exist for the benefit of the defense, to get wrongfully convicted people out of prison. It should not be a way for the prosecution to go after people already found not guilty.

[Thanas]

It's been five years. How long should Amanda Knox have the sword of Damocles hanging over her head? How many bullets should the prosecution get?

They get as many appeals as the law allows.

I didn't ask how many they do get, but how many they should get. And I say the answer is zero: absent that "fresh and compelling" evidence, once the prosecution fails once, that should be it.

So let me get this straight - the defence gets the chance to appeal anything they like, but the prosecution has to bear any procedural mistakes or errors in judgement? Where the heck is the fairness in that?

The American death penalty is a complete clusterfuck, but at least once you're off death row you don't have to worry about some judge deciding "Nope, you're guilty again. You're back on death row."

And at least once the appeal process is exhausted, you are free as well. I don't see the problem here.

The appeals process should be a ratchet. It should exist for the benefit of the defense, to get wrongfully convicted people out of prison. It should not be a way for the prosecution to go after people already found not guilty.

Why should it only exist for the defence? Shouldn't it be a general tool to fix all mistakes made? Why are you so pro-crime?

[Replicant]

Are you trying to claim that because they let her leave that the trial and appeals process was over?

If you let someone leave your area of jurisdiction without any guaranteed method of forcing that person's return then are you not in effect telling people the trial and appeals process is over?

I mean sure you can continue the process, but if the person is gone and you cannot force their return then your just pissing in the wind. The only thing you are honestly accomplishing is limiting Amanda's ability to travel around the world as she now has to avoid traveling to countries likely to arrest her and extradite her to Italy. Though I wonder how many countries would bother doing that.

[Replicant]

Why should it only exist for the defence? Shouldn't it be a general tool to fix all mistakes made? Why are you so pro-crime?

Well some people truly like the idea "may 10 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man be jailed" whether or not its a good idea.

Also allowing for the prosecution to have appeals for "mistakes" creates motivation for the prosecutor to intentionally hold back evidence and then discover it later.

Besides the prosecution already has a way around double jeopardy, at least for a large number of criminal cases. As long as a person commits more than one felony then you hold back a charge and only go after them for that charge if you mess up the first time around. If I remember right I had it explained to me once that this technique is why you never see a mass murderer charged with all of the murders when taken to trial. Some are held back in case there is a problem during the trial. If some screw-up results in the murderer going free then you move forward with the other charges you held back the first time.

[Kitsune]

For me, it is more a case of almost certainly not guilty. . . . .
There have been plenty of US cases where I feel this is the same
Norfolk Four and Cameron Todd Willingham are two off the top of my head.

With this case, the second you even suggest "Satanic Ritual", I think the prosecutor should be given a psychological evaluation himself or herself.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why should it only exist for the defence? Shouldn't it be a general tool to fix all mistakes made? Why are you so pro-crime?

Because you want to as certain as possible that you dont imprison an innocent person for 30 years?

Now, this is coming from the perspective of someone who lives in a common law system with adversarial courts, so keep that in mind.

The state has a really really big hammer. A criminal trial is bringing the weight of the state against one person. As I understand it, Italy uses an adversarial system (albeit civil law), which means the same basic condition applies. Namely, the deck is already stacked against them[the defendant].

The prosecutor is there, with evidence collected by numerous professional investigators. Moreover, they dont even need a unanimous vote to convict, just a majority vote from a panel of judges.

If they cannot convict the first time under such favorable conditions, why on earth should they get a second? Or, to put it another way...

Given the conditions, a judgement of Guilty does not mean the defendant actually is guilty. If the defendant is found Not Guilty, it is established ipso facto that reasonable doubt regarding their guilt exists. Why on earth should the prosecution be allowed to shop around until they find a panel of judges that will convict? If brand new evidence were to show up, that would be one thing, but in this case it is moot. And even if it were not, such a thing is subject to abuse if permitted.

You cannot stop false positives or false negatives from happening. But you can and I would argue should set it up so that you bias the system in favor of false negatives rather than false positives.

[Flagg]

It's been five years. How long should Amanda Knox have the sword of Damocles hanging over her head? How many bullets should the prosecution get?

They get as many appeals as the law allows.

I didn't ask how many they do get, but how many they should get. And I say the answer is zero: absent that "fresh and compelling" evidence, once the prosecution fails once, that should be it.

I find it ironic that this is supposed to be a great injustice yet within the US people wait for decades on death row not knowing whether they shall live or die. Compared to that the italian system is very benign.

The American death penalty is a complete clusterfuck, but at least once you're off death row you don't have to worry about some judge deciding "Nope, you're guilty again. You're back on death row."

It's an appeals process you idiot. Appeals can go on for decades in the states. This whole "raaaaar double jeopardy!!!" stuff is a fucking red herring.

Indeed.

The appeals process should be a ratchet. It should exist for the benefit of the defense, to get wrongfully convicted people out of prison. It should not be a way for the prosecution to go after people already found not guilty.

Do you know anything about anything? Guess what, in America where only the defense can appeal a verdict, if an appellate court finds that someone is on death row and decides that they should go free, THE PROSECUTION CAN APPEAL THAT RULING. That means that yes, the person can literally go free, have a higher court reverse the appellate courts ruling, and send the defendant right back to death row.
And guess what? Do you wanna know why double jeopardy doesn't apply? Because this is Knox's appeals process stemming from the original verdict.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you know anything about anything? Guess what, in America where only the defense can appeal a verdict, if an appellate court finds that someone is on death row and decides that they should go free, THE PROSECUTION CAN APPEAL THAT RULING. That means that yes, the person can literally go free, have a higher court reverse the appellate courts ruling, and send the defendant right back to death row.
And guess what? Do you wanna know why double jeopardy doesn't apply? Because this is Knox's appeals process stemming from the original verdict.

No. You are incorrect. Or rather, you are comparing apples to oranges. If, in the US, a appellate court vacates a guilty verdict on a matter of law (for example, if the appeals court rules that the original judge made a legal error when they made ruling X) or commutes a sentence as a matter of law, the prosecution can appeal on the grounds of that matter of law.

They cannot. Ever. Appeal an actual verdict. In this instance, the case was sent back for a second trial (When this happens in a US court the original trial is considered to have been completely invalid due to some legal or procedural error), lead to a not-guilty verdict (a second trial verdict), which was then appealed to a higher court on the grounds of "we want a mulligan".

[Flagg]

Thanas, I get the impression that prosecutors in most of Western Europe are not given nearly as much power as they are in the US, is that true for the most part? Because here there are plenty of asshole DAs with small dicks and giant egos who only care about getting convictions and they would gleefully abuse a system where they could keep going after a defendant repeatedly found not guilty.

In the US, with our racist, lopsided, if you're poor you're fucked system I have no problem with only giving the prosecution one bite at the apple. That said, if and when we clean up our cesspool of a justice system I'd be more than happy to allow the prosecution an appeal on the condition of new and compelling evidence being discovered.

[Flagg]

Do you know anything about anything? Guess what, in America where only the defense can appeal a verdict, if an appellate court finds that someone is on death row and decides that they should go free, THE PROSECUTION CAN APPEAL THAT RULING. That means that yes, the person can literally go free, have a higher court reverse the appellate courts ruling, and send the defendant right back to death row.
And guess what? Do you wanna know why double jeopardy doesn't apply? Because this is Knox's appeals process stemming from the original verdict.

No. You are incorrect. Or rather, you are comparing apples to oranges. If, in the US, a appellate court vacates a guilty verdict on a matter of law (for example, if the appeals court rules that the original judge made a legal error when they made ruling X) or commutes a sentence as a matter of law, the prosecution can appeal on the grounds of that matter of law.

They cannot. Ever. Appeal an actual verdict. In this instance, the case was sent back for a second trial (When this happens in a US court the original trial is considered to have been completely invalid due to some legal or procedural error), lead to a not-guilty verdict (a second trial verdict), which was then appealed to a higher court on the grounds of "we want a mulligan".

It's my understanding that in Italy the appellate court was the one holding the second trial that found her not guilty, and a higher appellate court just held a third trial finding her guilty.

Now I grant you that in the US what I described rarely happens as appellate courts will usually just overturn the verdict and order a new trial. But what I described is possible within US law.

[Melchior]

Thanas, I get the impression that prosecutors in most of Western Europe are not given nearly as much power as they are in the US, is that true for the most part? Because here there are plenty of asshole DAs with small dicks and giant egos who only care about getting convictions and they would gleefully abuse a system where they could keep going after a defendant repeatedly found not guilty.

Prosecutors derive no specific career benefit from conviction ratios (and nobody in their right mind would think of boasting about theirs). They are not elected either.

[Kitsune]

Italy does seem to have a reputation for questionable court cases such as attempting to try Mario Lozano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Lozano_%28soldier%29

[Borgholio]

Also allowing for the prosecution to have appeals for "mistakes" creates motivation for the prosecutor to intentionally hold back evidence and then discover it later.

Why the fuck would they do that? If you have enough evidence to toss the accused behind bars on the first try, why hold it back and take twice as long to do the same thing (assuming everything goes your way the second time)?

[Kitsune]

Why the fuck would they do that? If you have enough evidence to toss the accused behind bars on the first try, why hold it back and take twice as long to do the same thing (assuming everything goes your way the second time)?

In the US, prosecutors love to do that with evidence that would exonerate the defendant

I want to make sure that I did not miss anything as understood with this case
There is excellent physical evidence on Guede
There is no real physical evidence on Knox or Sollecito
Knox and Sollecito seem to have been convicted on story inconsistencies?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Well some people truly like the idea "may 10 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man be jailed" whether or not its a good idea.

Yeah, because them Eurocommies have no respect for FREEDUM.

No. Get out of here. This is beyond laughable.

Also allowing for the prosecution to have appeals for "mistakes" creates motivation for the prosecutor to intentionally hold back evidence and then discover it later.

This is bullshit and you know it. The US system gives far greater motivation for a prosecutor to send an innocent to jail. In fact, the scandal with that forensics lab alone is an order of magnitude worse than anything I have heard from western Europe.

Italy does seem to have a reputation for questionable court cases such as attempting to try Mario Lozano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Lozano_%28soldier%29

What is 'questionable' about it? An Italian intelligence officer was shot by American troops, Italy decided to investigate because of course they fucking would and then decided they had no jurisdiction. Investigating your soldiers' deaths is now questionable?

[Thanas]

Before I deal with the general flood of idiocy in this thread, I shall remind everyone that we had a huge thread about americans being idiots and assuming everything from their point of view and their experiences and then using that measurement to talk crap about a system they know nothing about.

I see the same thing happening here even from supposedly intelligent people and I do not like it one bit. If you do not know a specific thing then ask about it before spewing stupid crap. Do not assume prosecutors are the same in the US. Do not assume the state is out to get people. Do not assume horribly contrived scenarios where this could be abused etc.

Because I dealt with all of that in the other thread and I am not going to go over all of that again, except for possibly hauling idiots up for failing to read the previous thread.

[Lolpah]

The Italian court system does have a reputation for being extremely slow and inefficient, but that doesn't mean all of it's practices that differ from the American system are bad, particularly not those which are used with far better results in other countries.

[Thanas]

The Italian court system does have a reputation for being extremely slow and inefficient, but that doesn't mean all of it's practices that differ from the American system are bad, particularly not those which are used with far better results in other countries.

That is a most important point and thank you for making it. The most egregious cases of miscarriages of justice I can find in the german system are four unjust convictions and one exoneration of a police officer. That does not even rate compared to the US system what with its death row scandals.

Are you trying to claim that because they let her leave that the trial and appeals process was over?

If you let someone leave your area of jurisdiction without any guaranteed method of forcing that person's return then are you not in effect telling people the trial and appeals process is over?

No there are literally hundreds of cases like that where political pressure forced one state to let someone leave but the trial goes on. You should know several of them, for example when nations let dissidents go. And how many freaking times do I have to repeat myself that there was enormous pressure on part of the USA to let her go?

Besides, it is rather inhumane to stop someone from travelling for over a decade, right?

Well some people truly like the idea "may 10 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man be jailed" whether or not its a good idea.

And therefore it would be best to have multiple panels of highly qualified judges to make sure that no mistake was made, no?

Also allowing for the prosecution to have appeals for "mistakes" creates motivation for the prosecutor to intentionally hold back evidence and then discover it later.

No. Prosecutors are not elected, nor are they promoted based on conviction rates, but generally based on seniority. There is no incentive for a prosecutor to hold back evidence (and in fact he can be hauled up on charges if he does so). So why would anybody risk scuttling entire cases and his career for no gain?

Besides the prosecution already has a way around double jeopardy, at least for a large number of criminal cases. As long as a person commits more than one felony then you hold back a charge and only go after them for that charge if you mess up the first time around. If I remember right I had it explained to me once that this technique is why you never see a mass murderer charged with all of the murders when taken to trial. Some are held back in case there is a problem during the trial. If some screw-up results in the murderer going free then you move forward with the other charges you held back the first time.

You are not allowed to hold back charges. Whatever you can prove has to go to trial.

For me, it is more a case of almost certainly not guilty. . . . .
There have been plenty of US cases where I feel this is the same
Norfolk Four and Cameron Todd Willingham are two off the top of my head.

With this case, the second you even suggest "Satanic Ritual", I think the prosecutor should be given a psychological evaluation himself or herself.

It is good to know that you are adequately informed about the case and have the legal education and mind to make your opinion matter. I mean, you have read the evidence file, right? Or did you just go and base your opinion on the US media which has howled "ITALIAN MONKEY JUSTICE BAD" right from the get go?

Why should it only exist for the defence? Shouldn't it be a general tool to fix all mistakes made? Why are you so pro-crime?

Because you want to as certain as possible that you dont imprison an innocent person for 30 years?

And I repeat, what better way to do that than to have several independent highly qualified bodies make a judgement on it? You are a scientist, so you should be familiar with the concept of peer review. What is better, one reviewer or three?

Now, this is coming from the perspective of someone who lives in a common law system with adversarial courts, so keep that in mind.

Yes and I think this is the problem. everybody knows the way the US system works. No american knows how the European system works.

The state has a really really big hammer. A criminal trial is bringing the weight of the state against one person. As I understand it, Italy uses an adversarial system (albeit civil law), which means the same basic condition applies. Namely, the deck is already stacked against them[the defendant].

No. Italy does not use an adversarial system. They are using a modified inquisitorial system with adversarial elements, such as the main case has to be made by the lawyers. This is a pretty good basic summary.

The prosecutor is there, with evidence collected by numerous professional investigators. Moreover, they dont even need a unanimous vote to convict, just a majority vote from a panel of judges.

If they cannot convict the first time under such favorable conditions, why on earth should they get a second? Or, to put it another way...

Because everybody can make mistakes.

Given the conditions, a judgement of Guilty does not mean the defendant actually is guilty. If the defendant is found Not Guilty, it is established ipso facto that reasonable doubt regarding their guilt exists. Why on earth should the prosecution be allowed to shop around until they find a panel of judges that will convict? If brand new evidence were to show up, that would be one thing, but in this case it is moot. And even if it were not, such a thing is subject to abuse if permitted.

How could they shop around? Please look at the way the system is set up. I am sure you will find that mistake yourself.

You cannot stop false positives or false negatives from happening. But you can and I would argue should set it up so that you bias the system in favor of false negatives rather than false positives.

They already did that by making sure that if the defendant appeals no harsher sentence than the original one might be handed down.

Thanas, I get the impression that prosecutors in most of Western Europe are not given nearly as much power as they are in the US, is that true for the most part? Because here there are plenty of asshole DAs with small dicks and giant egos who only care about getting convictions and they would gleefully abuse a system where they could keep going after a defendant repeatedly found not guilty.

In the US, with our racist, lopsided, if you're poor you're fucked system I have no problem with only giving the prosecution one bite at the apple. That said, if and when we clean up our cesspool of a justice system I'd be more than happy to allow the prosecution an appeal on the condition of new and compelling evidence being discovered.

Prosecutors are not paid by conviction, not elected, generally have a lifelong career and don't use it to get into higher political office. Sure you end up with assholes, especially in some regions of Italy, but that is more a byproduct of the regions than the area itself. When you get blown up with car bombs on a regular basis you get a bit bitter.

[Kitsune]

For me, it is more a case of almost certainly not guilty. . . . .
There have been plenty of US cases where I feel this is the same
Norfolk Four and Cameron Todd Willingham are two off the top of my head.

With this case, the second you even suggest "Satanic Ritual", I think the prosecutor should be given a psychological evaluation himself or herself.

It is good to know that you are adequately informed about the case and have the legal education and mind to make your opinion matter. I mean, you have read the evidence file, right? Or did you just go and base your opinion on the US media which has howled "ITALIAN MONKEY JUSTICE BAD" right from the get go?

The two cases I pointed at were both US cases of Americans being tried.
I do not know if the Italian system is, as a whole, better or worse than the US system.
I am only specifically arguing that this case is bad and I know of at least two other cases which are bad in my opinion.

In the us, at least up until a few years ago, there were people in prison for satanic ritual crimes. There was also a case supposedly where a couple were prosecuted with the story being that they sacrificed their daughter to Satan because they had a Dungeons and Dragons novel.

I am knowledgeable enough that I can argue the forensics that has been listed.
Biggest thing is, to be blunt, they seem to have solid forensics on Guede but basically nothing for Knox or Sollecito
Generally, that is pretty smoking gun against them being involved.
It is very similar to the Norfolk Four case in that respect.

Edit: A way to look at my argument is "The US is bad but be nice to see something better out of other countries."
race to the bottom is bad