Kercher murder Trial

[Surlethe]

I think we really ought to draw a bright sharp line between the general quality of the Italian legal system and the quality of this trial in particular. On the one hand, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to take this case in particular and conclude that because it was poorly conducted the Italian system as a whole is biased/antiquated/horrible/whatever. On the other, it is a sweeping generalization fallacy to conclude that, because the whole Italian system is generally professional and well-conducted, this trial must not have been a miscarriage of justice. (One can certainly argue that it is much less likely to have been poorly conducted, but when the trial is public and specific information is available, that is a dodgy argument since in principle any informed person should reach the same conclusion on guilt/innocence -- presumably interpreting the evidence and judging innocence does not require any special information or training.)

[Thanas]

I think we really ought to draw a bright sharp line between the general quality of the Italian legal system and the quality of this trial in particular. On the one hand, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to take this case in particular and conclude that because it was poorly conducted the Italian system as a whole is biased/antiquated/horrible/whatever. On the other, it is a sweeping generalization fallacy to conclude that, because the whole Italian system is generally professional and well-conducted, this trial must not have been a miscarriage of justice.

Nobody is saying that, so I do not know what point you are trying to address here. However, a small correction to your point - the Italian system of justice is in principle, a good one. The laws are good, the people themselves are smart and dedicated (at least those I have met are, though of course this is a rather limited sample that is in the low dozens). However the Italian legal system suffers greatly from neglect, limited funding and outright hate from the politicians. See Berlusconi for example. So please do not take the Italian system as some shining example of jurisprudence.

That said, I would still rather take my chances with an italian court than with an american jury.

(One can certainly argue that it is much less likely to have been poorly conducted, but when the trial is public and specific information is available, that is a dodgy argument since in principle any informed person should reach the same conclusion on guilt/innocence -- presumably interpreting the evidence and judging innocence does not require any special information or training.)

However the informed persons are not in agreement here, so I'd rather wait for the full decision. I for one am leaning towards "yeah, she most likely did it".

[Surlethe]

Nobody is saying that, so I do not know what point you are trying to address here. However, a small correction to your point - the Italian system of justice is in principle, a good one. The laws are good, the people themselves are smart and dedicated (at least those I have met are, though of course this is a rather limited sample that is in the low dozens). However the Italian legal system suffers greatly from neglect, limited funding and outright hate from the politicians. See Berlusconi for example. So please do not take the Italian system as some shining example of jurisprudence.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't trying to make any statements in either direction, but rather to point out that this single case and the overall quality of the Italian system are in principle unrelated. I am pretty sure that there are Americans saying that the Italian legal system is totally worthless based on the Knox trial, and in this thread it has sometimes seemed as though you have been defending the Italian system against this argument (e.g., here), but perhaps I've been misinterpreting what you've been writing.

That said, I would still rather take my chances with an italian court than with an american jury.

Me too. Unless I am filthy rich.

However the informed persons are not in agreement here, so I'd rather wait for the full decision. I for one am leaning towards "yeah, she most likely did it".

Personally, I'd like to see people continue arguing the evidence. There may be information unavailable to the public to which the full decision has access, but that seems unlikely to me, so in principle we ought to be able to argue to a judgment based on what we have available to us.

[Thanas]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't trying to make any statements in either direction, but rather to point out that this single case and the overall quality of the Italian system are in principle unrelated. I am pretty sure that there are Americans saying that the Italian legal system is totally worthless based on the Knox trial, and in this thread it has sometimes seemed as though you have been defending the Italian system against this argument (e.g., here), but perhaps I've been misinterpreting what you've been writing.

Well, what I was trying to do was to say that people should not take the lovely americacentric view of "all other foreign courts are bad" without knowing something about it. So yeah, I was defending the Italian legal system, but I do not think I ever wrote "She is guilty because the Italian court says so and they are awesome so they are right".

Personally, I'd like to see people continue arguing the evidence. There may be information unavailable to the public to which the full decision has access, but that seems unlikely to me, so in principle we ought to be able to argue to a judgment based on what we have available to us.

Well, I do have a slight problem with continuing the evidence - namely that a lot of details seem to have been reported in different ways by different media sources. So I'd really wish there would be one statement on which facts the court actually relied on to reach the decision. Which can only be obtained by reading the full verdict, which is not published yet. Otherwise, I fear all of this may be speculation that will end up being worthless and just continue to complicate the issue.

[Surlethe]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't trying to make any statements in either direction, but rather to point out that this single case and the overall quality of the Italian system are in principle unrelated. I am pretty sure that there are Americans saying that the Italian legal system is totally worthless based on the Knox trial, and in this thread it has sometimes seemed as though you have been defending the Italian system against this argument (e.g., here), but perhaps I've been misinterpreting what you've been writing.

Well, what I was trying to do was to say that people should not take the lovely americacentric view of "all other foreign courts are bad" without knowing something about it. So yeah, I was defending the Italian legal system, but I do not think I ever wrote "She is guilty because the Italian court says so and they are awesome so they are right".

Perhaps I took it incorrectly then.

Personally, I'd like to see people continue arguing the evidence. There may be information unavailable to the public to which the full decision has access, but that seems unlikely to me, so in principle we ought to be able to argue to a judgment based on what we have available to us.

Well, I do have a slight problem with continuing the evidence - namely that a lot of details seem to have been reported in different ways by different media sources. So I'd really wish there would be one statement on which facts the court actually relied on to reach the decision. Which can only be obtained by reading the full verdict, which is not published yet. Otherwise, I fear all of this may be speculation that will end up being worthless and just continue to complicate the issue.

At the very least we could get a sense of where the discrepancies are in how the media is reporting the facts; it shouldn't be too hard to reach a consensus on that.

[Big Phil]

I do hold several law degrees and spent some time with the US criminal justice system (precisely: two murder trials, two rape cases and one theft) while doing work with an appeals lawyer as part of the requirements for my degree in american law (German law schools offer a supplemental five-semester program on american and/or British law). I also spent time with Italian colleagues, though I have never practiced there or did much. I did however meet with several Italians at conferences, including some criminal judges. I also am pretty much familiar with the Italian constitution and the legal system through my studies in the field of constitutional history.

So while I am not as qualified to comment on it as, say, a real Italian lawyer would be, I think I can safely comment on the general quality of the Italian legal system.

And here I thought you were actually a net contributor to society; instead I find that you are actually a damned dirty lawyer stealing everyone's hard earned money with frivolous lawsuits and the like

[Thanas]

I do hold several law degrees and spent some time with the US criminal justice system (precisely: two murder trials, two rape cases and one theft) while doing work with an appeals lawyer as part of the requirements for my degree in american law (German law schools offer a supplemental five-semester program on american and/or British law). I also spent time with Italian colleagues, though I have never practiced there or did much. I did however meet with several Italians at conferences, including some criminal judges. I also am pretty much familiar with the Italian constitution and the legal system through my studies in the field of constitutional history.

So while I am not as qualified to comment on it as, say, a real Italian lawyer would be, I think I can safely comment on the general quality of the Italian legal system.

And here I thought you were actually a net contributor to society; instead I find that you are actually a damned dirty lawyer stealing everyone's hard earned money with frivolous lawsuits and the like

Not quite - as I do not practice law but am currently government-employed at a university, having fun with history. So I just steal everyone's hard earned tax money.

[Big Phil]

I'll say one additional thing, not directed at anyone in particular, just a generic comment. There are people who have spent an inordinate amount of time painting critics of the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito as casting a wide brush - in other words, anyone who questions the prosecution is also calling into question Italian culture, the whole of the Italian legal system, the Italian people, etc.

That reminds me a lot of right wingers efforts, last year, to paint supporters of Obama as viewing him as the messiah, when in fact it was actually Limbaugh (I believe) who said his supporters viewed him as a messianic figure. It's a simple and effective way of disregarding reasonable criticism, unfortunately.

[Big Phil]

**UPDATE**

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413534_guede22.html

Conviction of Guede upheld in Amanda Knox murder case

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PERUGIA, Italy -- An Italian appeals court on Tuesday upheld the guilty verdict for a man convicted of murdering a British student, but cut his prison sentence to 16 years.

Lawyers said the eight-member jury emerged from more than four hours of deliberations and upheld the conviction on charges of murder and sexual violence for Rudy Hermann Guede.

Guede, who is from Ivory Coast, denies killing Meredith Kercher and last year was sentenced to 30 years in a fast track trial he had requested.

Also convicted in the case, but in a separate trial, are Amanda Knox, the Seattle student who was the victim's roommate in Perugia, and Raffaele Sollecito, Knox's boyfriend at the time of the 2007 slaying.

Knox and Sollecito deny wrongdoing and are expected to appeal their convictions. They were sentenced earlier this month to 26 and 25 years in prison, respectively.

Kercher, a Leeds University student, was found in a pool of blood with her throat slit on Nov. 2, 2007, in the bedroom of an apartment in the central Italian town. Prosecutors believe she was killed the night before in a drug-fueled sex game involving Guede, Knox and Sollecito.

Guede, who was arrested in Germany shortly after the killing, has admitted being at the scene of the crime the night of the murder, but said he did not kill Kercher.

Guede was in court Tuesday when the verdict was read and told reporters afterward: "I am not happy because I am innocent."

Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca said he was satisfied that Guede was found guilty but was "surprised" that the sentence was cut by almost half.

He said the ruling recognized some extenuating circumstances for Guede but it will be necessary to wait for the court's reasonings, expected within 90 days, to know more details. Both the prosecution and the defense could appeal the verdict to Italy's top criminal court.

Guede's lawyers had requested that the verdict be overturned and he be acquitted.

According to the ANSA news agency, defense attorney Valter Biscotti likened Guede to Sam Sheppard, the U.S. doctor who was first convicted and later acquitted of killing his wife in 1954 and whose case inspired the movie and television series "The Fugitive."

Prosecutor Pietro Catalani asked the court on Tuesday to uphold the guilty verdict.

Update on the case - I'll be very curious to see this court's reasonings, and compare those with the verdict from the Knox/Sollecito case. This verdict makes no sense to me, and I'm surprised I haven't seen more outcry over the halving of the sentence.

[Melchior]

Update on the case - I'll be very curious to see this court's reasonings, and compare those with the verdict from the Knox/Sollecito case. This verdict makes no sense to me, and I'm surprised I haven't seen more outcry over the halving of the sentence.

It's rather typical; he accepted a expedited trial, it's usually a guarantee of a shorter sentence (the judicial system is swamped, with very long waits for trials). The outlier was the original 30 years long one.

[Liberty]

Oh my god. Sixteen years? His DNA was all over her! How does he get 16 years and Knox, whose DNA was nowhere in the room, get 26 years? This makes no sense.

Plus, does Italy commonly let convicted murderers out after only sixteen years? That's just scary.

[Thanas]

Germany has the option of letting out convicted murderers after 15 years. By European standards, Italy is pretty harsh with the sentences.

[Melchior]

Oh my god. Sixteen years? His DNA was all over her!

He was convicted of murder. They are not shortening the jail term because they are not sure. Not sure->acquittal.

Plus, does Italy commonly let convicted murderers out after only sixteen years? That's just scary.

Usually it's shorter. It's not like that the longer terms typically doled out in the USA are more useful, aren't they?

[Liberty]

Oh my god. Sixteen years? His DNA was all over her!

He was convicted of murder. They are not shortening the jail term because they are not sure. Not sure->acquittal.

Plus, does Italy commonly let convicted murderers out after only sixteen years? That's just scary.

Usually it's shorter. It's not like that the longer terms typically doled out in the USA are more useful, aren't they?

I don't know. I guess I'm just not used to the idea of letting a murderer out of jail at all. It just seems dangerous. Then again, America's justice system is a mess anyway...

[salm]

I don't know. I guess I'm just not used to the idea of letting a murderer out of jail at all. It just seems dangerous. Then again, America's justice system is a mess anyway...

Well, most murderers don´t commit another murder after doing their time. Also, the prisoner is tested and if the shrinks think that he´s still a hazard there are ways to keep him locked up.
Granted, this sometimes fails and the murderer does commit another violent crime. The system compromises some safety for a more humane treatment of criminals as do other things in some European countries. Cops are not allowed to shoot people as easily as in the US for example which has a similar reason and mechanism.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I mean europe has even managed to rehabilitate the teens from "Heavenly Creatures" fame, and serial killer Mary Bell....

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't know. I guess I'm just not used to the idea of letting a murderer out of jail at all. It just seems dangerous. Then again, America's justice system is a mess anyway...

Well, most murderers don´t commit another murder after doing their time. Also, the prisoner is tested and if the shrinks think that he´s still a hazard there are ways to keep him locked up.
Granted, this sometimes fails and the murderer does commit another violent crime. The system compromises some safety for a more humane treatment of criminals as do other things in some European countries. Cops are not allowed to shoot people as easily as in the US for example which has a similar reason and mechanism.

This is something I've never understood about other countries. Granted the US justice system leaves a lot to be desired and the prisons need to be reformed, but why is compromising the safety of the law abiding citizens for "more humane" treatment of criminals a superior system? I'm not necessarily against giving criminals a second chance...even a murdered if the circumstances are right. However, what penalties exist when a non-US system allows a murderer out and that person kills again? Are those who let that criminal out held accountable?

Also, under what circumstances can an officer use deadly force? In the US a police officer can only use deadly force when a reasonable person would conclude such force is necessary to prevent death or seriously bodily injury to the officer or another person.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Usually it's shorter. It's not like that the longer terms typically doled out in the USA are more useful, aren't they?

I guess that depends on how you define "useful".

[Stofsk]

I don't know. I guess I'm just not used to the idea of letting a murderer out of jail at all. It just seems dangerous. Then again, America's justice system is a mess anyway...

Well, most murderers don´t commit another murder after doing their time. Also, the prisoner is tested and if the shrinks think that he´s still a hazard there are ways to keep him locked up.
Granted, this sometimes fails and the murderer does commit another violent crime. The system compromises some safety for a more humane treatment of criminals as do other things in some European countries. Cops are not allowed to shoot people as easily as in the US for example which has a similar reason and mechanism.

This is something I've never understood about other countries. Granted the US justice system leaves a lot to be desired and the prisons need to be reformed, but why is compromising the safety of the law abiding citizens for "more humane" treatment of criminals a superior system? I'm not necessarily against giving criminals a second chance...even a murdered if the circumstances are right. However, what penalties exist when a non-US system allows a murderer out and that person kills again? Are those who let that criminal out held accountable?

A lot are crimes of passion and the offender ends up regretting what they've done anyway. Also where I'm from, only the maximum is defined by legislation. Both the head sentence and minimum non-parole period is left up to the Judge's discretion. He can go as low as under a decade to over two decades on the minimum sentence, which is all that matters to the prisoner being sentenced.

Few people have been sentenced to life, no parole, but the ones that have been... well, deserve it. There was a guy who was cunning, smart, and capable, who did 12 or 13 years for an armed robbery. He got parole, went out and within a few months was back inside prison after having committed another armed robbery - only this time an innocent security guard had been murdered. He had a trial and drew it out as long as humanly possible, and the Judge ended up giving him life. He has a minimum 30 year non-parole period, but no way in hell is he ever going to get parole. He'll either die in prison or if he makes it to the earliest-release date, the parole board will tell him to get fucked.

[salm]

This is something I've never understood about other countries. Granted the US justice system leaves a lot to be desired and the prisons need to be reformed, but why is compromising the safety of the law abiding citizens for "more humane" treatment of criminals a superior system? I'm not necessarily against giving criminals a second chance...even a murdered if the circumstances are right. However, what penalties exist when a non-US system allows a murderer out and that person kills again? Are those who let that criminal out held accountable?

Also, under what circumstances can an officer use deadly force? In the US a police officer can only use deadly force when a reasonable person would conclude such force is necessary to prevent death or seriously bodily injury to the officer or another person.

The thing is that the US system also compromises safety for a more humane treatment. The only difference is that it compromises less than European systems. It draws the line somewhere else. Now, it´s up to everybody themselves where they want this line to be since it´s a moral line which tend to be rather arbitrary.

I can´t remember exactly when a German police officer can use deadly force but i remember a thread not too long ago where we discussed exactly that and there were a lot of cases where the US officer may or is even advised to shoot to kill when the German officer may only shoot to wound.
Maybe you remember that thread as well. I think you commented in it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A lot are crimes of passion and the offender ends up regretting what they've done anyway. Also where I'm from, only the maximum is defined by legislation. Both the head sentence and minimum non-parole period is left up to the Judge's discretion. He can go as low as under a decade to over two decades on the minimum sentence, which is all that matters to the prisoner being sentenced.

I understand that, but it's starting to sound like the phrase "crime of passion" is being used as an excuse. Yes, it is a crime of passion, but during that intense period of emotions they took another persons life. Now, I think each individual situation needs to be evaluated. Just remember domestic violence incidents are generally crimes of passion.

Few people have been sentenced to life, no parole, but the ones that have been... well, deserve it. There was a guy who was cunning, smart, and capable, who did 12 or 13 years for an armed robbery. He got parole, went out and within a few months was back inside prison after having committed another armed robbery - only this time an innocent security guard had been murdered. He had a trial and drew it out as long as humanly possible, and the Judge ended up giving him life. He has a minimum 30 year non-parole period, but no way in hell is he ever going to get parole. He'll either die in prison or if he makes it to the earliest-release date, the parole board will tell him to get fucked.

Yeah, and that's good that he's been put away forever. However, the system may have failed because it paroled a person who ended up doing the same thing and this time he took something that can't be replaced.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The thing is that the US system also compromises safety for a more humane treatment. The only difference is that it compromises less than European systems. It draws the line somewhere else. Now, it´s up to everybody themselves where they want this line to be since it´s a moral line which tend to be rather arbitrary.

Yes, it does. I'm not trying to say that I'm against making compromises. It just seems that some compromises are heavily betting against the odds. Take Stofsk example. Paroling a person who was jailed for armed robbery. This could be a failure on the part of government, but it also could not be. For example if they paroled an armed robber who in his past criminal history showed a willingness to use deadly force or was quick to use violence to accomplish his goals then yes the government failed and decided on a reckless compromise.

I can´t remember exactly when a German police officer can use deadly force but i remember a thread not too long ago where we discussed exactly that and there were a lot of cases where the US officer may or is even advised to shoot to kill when the German officer may only shoot to wound.
Maybe you remember that thread as well. I think you commented in it.

Oh right. I remember this thread now.

[salm]

The thing is that the US system also compromises safety for a more humane treatment. The only difference is that it compromises less than European systems. It draws the line somewhere else. Now, it´s up to everybody themselves where they want this line to be since it´s a moral line which tend to be rather arbitrary.

Yes, it does. I'm not trying to say that I'm against making compromises. It just seems that some compromises are heavily betting against the odds. Take Stofsk example. Paroling a person who was jailed for armed robbery. This could be a failure on the part of government, but it also could not be. For example if they paroled an armed robber who in his past criminal history showed a willingness to use deadly force or was quick to use violence to accomplish his goals then yes the government failed and decided on a reckless compromise.

Well, that´s an example of the negative effects of compromising more. Under a system where nobody is ever paroled he obviously would not have killed that guard.
On the other hand, in a system where nobody is ever paroled all the other robbers who might become functioning members of society and do not kill anybody after being paroled would also not be released.
So, now we´d have to know how many paroled armed robbers commit another crime (and what types) after being released and how many don´t. Then we could evaluate how much compromise makes sense. It would still be highly subjective, though because some people will sacrifice more security for better treatment of criminals than others.

[Sir Sirius]

Bumb!

Latest

20:50 The judge says Knox has won her appeal, she is cleared. Raffaele Sollecito is also cleared. He says the evidence is "not reliable" and cannot be sustained.

Just in. Knox and Sollecito have won their appeal.

[Thanas]

Already posted.