If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Amanda Knox found guilty of murder...again (link fixed)   (worldnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 365
    More: Interesting, Amanda Knox, found guilty, murders, ebola, West Nile virus  
•       •       •

9427 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2014 at 5:04 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



365 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-30 08:05:55 PM

hardinparamedic: Bungles: This isn't double jeopardy, and the US has regularly extradited to Italy (with the sole time it wasn't observed because of it involved CIA agents). The only clause in the treaty even relating to anything like what you'd call "double jeopardy" is about crimes that have already been through the court system in the US/Italy and essentially would be retried in the country of extradition. Which isn't the case here.

You're not speaking from a position of knowledge here, you're making things up. It doesn't help Knox's case for her supporters just to make stuff up.

I'm curious how you state what just happened is not an invocation of Double Jeopardy. Please educate us.


It doesn't matter - it only matters that WE THINK IT IS. We don't hold the death penalty to be inhumane and unacceptable - but the Italians do - that's why they won't extradite people who we might put to death.
They don't observe the treaty when it conflicts with their values - why should we?
 
2014-01-30 08:06:54 PM
Bungles:

This isn't double jeopardy,


You do understand that words have meanings, right?
 
2014-01-30 08:07:16 PM

jso2897: Bungles: jso2897: Bungles: flondrix: Bungles: Ummmm, an Appeal Court and a Supreme Court reviewing cases isn't double jeopardy, no matter how easy a sound bite that makes.


So are you going on record as predicting she will be extradited?


Good lord no, I think it very, very unlikely she'll be extradited, but that's for political reasons at the discretion of John Kerry, not because of issues of alleged "double jeopardy".

MagicianNamedGob:

I think you are speaking without knowledge. Here is the opinion of someone with knowledge:

It is unlikely that Knox, who lives in Seattle, Washington, will return to Italy to serve additional prison time because U.S. law dictates that a person cannot be tried twice on the same charge, a legal expert told CNN. He believes that if Italy were to ask for extradition, U.S. officials would deny the request. "She was once put in jeopardy and later acquitted," said Sean Casey, a former prosecutor who is now a partner at Kobre & Kim in New York. "Under the treaty, extradition should not be granted."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/30/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-retrial /



That's not a common view. Is Mr Casey an expert in extradition law?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10607883/ Wh at-next-for-Amanda-Knox.html

Some lawyers and supporters of Ms Knox have argued that having been acquitted in 2011, she would be protected under the US Constitution from "double jeopardy" - being tried twice for the same charge.
Yet the US-Italy extradition treaty only protects Americans from extradition to face prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the US legal system. "This is not applicable in this situation," said Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University.
For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce "a brief statement of the facts of the case," as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations.
Her conviction would "easily satisfy the conditions of the treaty," said Prof Ku. "So it would be hard for the US to explain why she should not be handed over".



She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.
 
2014-01-30 08:11:02 PM

VladTheEmailer: methinks if Farkers had any say in the situation, she would probably be allowed to stay if she goes into porn.


She says the prison docs measured her poon and another bisexual inmate tried to make out with her, so there's that.

/poon
 
2014-01-30 08:11:15 PM

hardinparamedic: Bungles: This isn't double jeopardy, and the US has regularly extradited to Italy (with the sole time it wasn't observed because of it involved CIA agents). The only clause in the treaty even relating to anything like what you'd call "double jeopardy" is about crimes that have already been through the court system in the US/Italy and essentially would be retried in the country of extradition. Which isn't the case here.

You're not speaking from a position of knowledge here, you're making things up. It doesn't help Knox's case for her supporters just to make stuff up.

I'm curious how you state what just happened is not an invocation of Double Jeopardy. Please educate us.


I've already explained the reasons I don't believe it is, and why very little of the legal comment thinks it is (outside US 24/7 news hired gun bloviators).

This is the final appeal stage of the same trial. It isn't a separate trial. It's a tri-part appeal system. She was not "acquitted" in the US sense, she was (in a literal translation) "acquitted subject to appeal" in the second stage of the three part process.
 
2014-01-30 08:11:46 PM
Bungles:

She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

They may instead object on the basis that she did not receive a fair trial which would be more a finger in Italy's eye and also, by the way, true. Here's an expert giving that opinion:

I predict that, even if she is convicted in absentia, there's no way that Knox will be extradited back to Italy to serve her sentence. Knox is a cause célèbre in the U.S., and her partisans will exert significant pressure on the government to deny any extradition request. Article X of
More likely is that, if Knox is convicted again, Italy won't even bother requesting her extradition. Doing so would cause a small but real international incident, something that both nations would prefer to avoid. The two countries will reach some sort of agreement, and Knox will never spend another day in an Italian jail.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/26/meredith_kercher_murder_ ca se_amanda_knox_will_never_be_extradited_to_italy.html
 
2014-01-30 08:12:59 PM

China White Tea: Bungles:

This isn't double jeopardy,


You do understand that words have meanings, right?


Yes, and if you actually read my posts (and the 99% of the posts on virtually any int.law forum with a Knox thread) you'll see why few would say it is.
 
2014-01-30 08:13:48 PM

Bungles: She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue


Maybe she'll dance for him reeeeeeal slow in appreciation. Make him forget all his Abbas/Netanyahu troubles.
 
2014-01-30 08:14:08 PM

Bungles: She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.


It is double jeopardy under our law - just as the death penalty is, under theirs. And the John Kerry crap is just paranoid nonsense.
You admit that there is no real chance that Knox will ever be extradited, but invent a convenient plot by The Evil John Kerry.
So, you have created a narrative where you can be dead wrong, but still call yourself right.
Well - no point in my arguing with you further.
 
2014-01-30 08:15:32 PM

keepitcherry: Cyclometh: The Italian justice system seems, from an outside observer's viewpoint, to be not only completely incompetent and capricious, but deeply corrupt.

So what you're saying is it's just like ours?


Nah, Italy has the US beat by miles in the "shiatty justice system" department.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/22/us-italy-earthquake-court- id USBRE89L13V20121022

The US justice system is shiat, but Italy is pants-on-head farktarded.
 
2014-01-30 08:16:58 PM

MagicianNamedGob: Bungles:

She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

They may instead object on the basis that she did not receive a fair trial which would be more a finger in Italy's eye and also, by the way, true. Here's an expert giving that opinion:

I predict that, even if she is convicted in absentia, there's no way that Knox will be extradited back to Italy to serve her sentence. Knox is a cause célèbre in the U.S., and her partisans will exert significant pressure on the government to deny any extradition request. Article X of
More likely is that, if Knox is convicted again, Italy won't even bother requesting her extradition. Doing so would cause a small but real international incident, something that both nations would prefer to avoid. The two countries will reach some sort of agreement, and Knox will never spend another day in an Italian jail.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/26/meredith_kercher_murder_ ca se_amanda_knox_will_never_be_extradited_to_italy.html


That's also a possibility, but I honestly have no knowledge over how Italian law dictates how extradition requests are made: I don't know if they'll *have* to issue one, even if they don't wish to for political reasons, because of the wording of the law.

I think it's more likely they will, and it will quietly rot on Kerry's desk under the fog of "negotiations", so no side loses face.
 
2014-01-30 08:17:05 PM

MagicianNamedGob: Bungles:

She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

They may instead object on the basis that she did not receive a fair trial which would be more a finger in Italy's eye and also, by the way, true. Here's an expert giving that opinion:

I predict that, even if she is convicted in absentia, there's no way that Knox will be extradited back to Italy to serve her sentence. Knox is a cause célèbre in the U.S., and her partisans will exert significant pressure on the government to deny any extradition request. Article X of
More likely is that, if Knox is convicted again, Italy won't even bother requesting her extradition. Doing so would cause a small but real international incident, something that both nations would prefer to avoid. The two countries will reach some sort of agreement, and Knox will never spend another day in an Italian jail.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/26/meredith_kercher_murder_ ca se_amanda_knox_will_never_be_extradited_to_italy.html


This part was cut out of my paste:

Article X of the current U.S. Italy extradition treaty states that the requesting nation must present a case summary that provides "a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested." The United States will probably use this as grounds for blocking Knox's extradition.
 
2014-01-30 08:18:29 PM

jso2897: Bungles: She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

It is double jeopardy under our law - just as the death penalty is, under theirs. And the John Kerry crap is just paranoid nonsense.
You admit that there is no real chance that Knox will ever be extradited, but invent a convenient plot by The Evil John Kerry.
So, you have created a narrative where you can be dead wrong, but still call yourself right.
Well - no point in my arguing with you further.


Ummm, it's nothing to do with "evil John Kerry". I rather like John Kerry. it's just that it's his decision. That's how your system works, if you're not familiar...
 
2014-01-30 08:19:22 PM
She's smoking hot, so she's staying put right here in the USA.
 
2014-01-30 08:20:34 PM

Bungles: China White Tea: Bungles:

This isn't double jeopardy,


You do understand that words have meanings, right?

Yes, and if you actually read my posts (and the 99% of the posts on virtually any int.law forum with a Knox thread) you'll see why few would say it is.


So she was never declared not guilty on an appeal of the case, and then tried again for the same charge she was found not guilty on?
 
2014-01-30 08:21:58 PM
 
2014-01-30 08:24:54 PM

MagicianNamedGob: MagicianNamedGob: Bungles:

She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

They may instead object on the basis that she did not receive a fair trial which would be more a finger in Italy's eye and also, by the way, true. Here's an expert giving that opinion:

I predict that, even if she is convicted in absentia, there's no way that Knox will be extradited back to Italy to serve her sentence. Knox is a cause célèbre in the U.S., and her partisans will exert significant pressure on the government to deny any extradition request. Article X of
More likely is that, if Knox is convicted again, Italy won't even bother requesting her extradition. Doing so would cause a small but real international incident, something that both nations would prefer to avoid. The two countries will reach some sort of agreement, and Knox will never spend another day in an Italian jail.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/26/meredith_kercher_murder_ ca se_amanda_knox_will_never_be_extradited_to_italy.html

This part was cut out of my paste:

Article X of the current U.S. Italy extradition treaty states that the requesting nation must present a case summary that provides "a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested." The United States will probably use this as grounds for blocking Knox's extradition.


Look - you are trying to talk sense to someone who seems to think that Italy has worked out a deal with the most powerful nation on Earth by which they can routinely ignore our requests for extradition, but we are obligated to honor theirs. This person also seems to think that under American law, that someone who has appealed a criminal conviction and won is still subject to being taken back to court on the same charges. And he keeps describing the process of Italian law as if that is relevant to whether we would extradited. And to top it off, he has informed us that when he turns out to be wrong, he will still be right because John Kerry did it because reasons - vague, unspecific  reasons.
 
2014-01-30 08:28:31 PM

Bungles: jso2897: Bungles: She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

It is double jeopardy under our law - just as the death penalty is, under theirs. And the John Kerry crap is just paranoid nonsense.
You admit that there is no real chance that Knox will ever be extradited, but invent a convenient plot by The Evil John Kerry.
So, you have created a narrative where you can be dead wrong, but still call yourself right.
Well - no point in my arguing with you further.

Ummm, it's nothing to do with "evil John Kerry". I rather like John Kerry. it's just that it's his decision. That's how your system works, if you're not familiar...


I know how the system works, professor. The point is, that if Kerry makes that decision, it will be for the simple, obvious reason that it is the right one. She is not subject to extradition under these circumstances. Kerry will not extradite her, because he should not. You can't provide any evidence to the contrary.
 
2014-01-30 08:32:27 PM
Actually, if Kerry really did refuse to extradite a murderer who was actually subject to extradition, he would be "evil John Kerry".
But that's not the situation.
 
2014-01-30 08:34:47 PM

Moopy Mac: Gyrfalcon: Didn't the "evidence" in this case come down to "someone said she once heard Knox say something bad about the victim" and also she didn't "act right" after the homicide; so clearly she's a depraved killer?

She was tried by the Italian (and English) tabloids.



Look, she clearly has terminal prostate cancer, and probably has three months to live. The British tabloids should be pushing for her release on compassionate grounds.

Also, she may have lots of oil.
 
2014-01-30 08:34:56 PM

hardinparamedic: Bungles: China White Tea: Bungles:

This isn't double jeopardy,


You do understand that words have meanings, right?

Yes, and if you actually read my posts (and the 99% of the posts on virtually any int.law forum with a Knox thread) you'll see why few would say it is.

So she was never declared not guilty on an appeal of the case, and then tried again for the same charge she was found not guilty on?


No, that's the point. She was "Acquitted pending appeal", which gives her travel rights, and which some of the more lightweight news channels reported as "acquitted", because there's no exact analogue in the US. I made this point repeatedly in the last thread an age ago, that the trial was still technically on-going, and was repeatedly shouted down with the "She's free! She's cleared! Shut up!" shouting.

It was the second stage in a tri-part review. It's the same trial. The equivalent in the US would be like saying verdict and sentencing are different trials in the US, because they often happen separately. They're not. They're stages in the same trial, it's just the US chooses to usually separate them.


This is nothing to do with my opinion on her guilt or innocence, it's just the bald facts of what's actually, technically, going on here.
 
2014-01-30 08:39:00 PM

jso2897: Bungles: jso2897: Bungles: She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

It is double jeopardy under our law - just as the death penalty is, under theirs. And the John Kerry crap is just paranoid nonsense.
You admit that there is no real chance that Knox will ever be extradited, but invent a convenient plot by The Evil John Kerry.
So, you have created a narrative where you can be dead wrong, but still call yourself right.
Well - no point in my arguing with you further.

Ummm, it's nothing to do with "evil John Kerry". I rather like John Kerry. it's just that it's his decision. That's how your system works, if you're not familiar...

I know how the system works, professor. The point is, that if Kerry makes that decision, it will be for the simple, obvious reason that it is the right one. She is not subject to extradition under these circumstances. Kerry will not extradite her, because he should not. You can't provide any evidence to the contrary.



The system isn't based on your gut feeling on what the "right" one is or not, it's based on a) the legal wording of the extradition treaty (which would suggest extradition) and b) the internal US politics of a popular figure being extradited (which would suggests no extradition).

The balance he chooses, I suspect, will be the latter.
 
2014-01-30 08:40:21 PM
What most Americans fail to realise is that sexual excess and unclean-ness are quite repulsive to Europeans & other cultures.[ongoing 3ways-4ways with casual pickups at a tavern, drugs, weapons, etc]

She was supposedly a -student- not a ho.

I blame her Mother 100% for sending her there and failing to raise her with some kind of moral structure. [like mother, like daughter]

Falsely framing a casual sex partner[bar owner] for the murder did not win her any sympathy either.
If this had happened in the US she would have been convicted, albeit less colorfully.

She will be extradited in about 18 mo.[after final appeal] Read the US law.
Most folks know what she & the 4 some were up to & how it got out of hand.
That was no problem for Italian Polizza to figure out.
They got a little outraged & bumbled a bit, but no one was fooled by her stories.

if this sounds harsh, it is what 90% of those who heard the news think....
 
2014-01-30 08:40:49 PM
Ultimately it doesn't matter what the treaty says.  The US will not extradite Amanda Knox and Italy won't push the issue because they got what they wanted already in a criminal conviction. The Italian government and prosecutors don't really care that they won't have to feed , house, and provide medical care for her for the next dozen years.  The only thing the government cared about is not having to admit that the police and prosecutors flubbed this case horribly and imprisoned Knox and Sollecito wrongfully.  Sadly for Sollecito  he is going to face the consequences for being at the wrong place and wrong time and for the hubris of prosecutors who wanted some extra scalps after they convicted the person who actually did the offense.
 
2014-01-30 08:41:25 PM

SirEattonHogg: Does anyone other than the Italians, actually think that the Italian justice system didn't horribly botch the hell out of the entire case?


This was Texas-style Justice, where she was found guilty of the murder because she and her boyfriend performed some sort of satanic orgy ritual and didn't love baby Jesus and whatever else sticks to the wall is enough to convict them.
 
2014-01-30 08:42:19 PM
jso2897:
It doesn't matter - it only matters that WE THINK IT IS. We don't hold the death penalty to be inhumane and unacceptable - but the Italians do - that's why they won't extradite people who we might put to death.
They don't observe the treaty when it conflicts with their values - why should we?


Uh, the extradition treaty explicitly states in Article IX that either party doesn't have to extradite someone for a crime where they might face the death penalty if they wouldn't face the death penalty for the same crime in the country they're going to be extradited from.  In fact, it states that it will be refused.  So, not extraditing people if they might face the death penalty here is completely within the terms of the treaty so long as Italy doesn't have the death penalty on the table for it.

Here are the exact words:
ARTICLE IX
Capital Punishment
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested
Party do not provide for such punishment for that offense, extradition shall be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as
the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.
 
2014-01-30 08:42:21 PM
this thread is terrible and i farking hate all of you
 
2014-01-30 08:45:25 PM
And just to add to the fun, she gets an increased sentence of 28.5 years now.

Guess no credit for time served, eh?

http://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-39-frightened-39-guilty-verdict-28- 21 1609951--abc-news-topstories.html
 
2014-01-30 08:46:24 PM

Bungles: hardinparamedic: Bungles: China White Tea: Bungles:

This isn't double jeopardy,


You do understand that words have meanings, right?

Yes, and if you actually read my posts (and the 99% of the posts on virtually any int.law forum with a Knox thread) you'll see why few would say it is.

So she was never declared not guilty on an appeal of the case, and then tried again for the same charge she was found not guilty on?

No, that's the point. She was "Acquitted pending appeal", which gives her travel rights, and which some of the more lightweight news channels reported as "acquitted", because there's no exact analogue in the US. I made this point repeatedly in the last thread an age ago, that the trial was still technically on-going, and was repeatedly shouted down with the "She's free! She's cleared! Shut up!" shouting.

It was the second stage in a tri-part review. It's the same trial. The equivalent in the US would be like saying verdict and sentencing are different trials in the US, because they often happen separately. They're not. They're stages in the same trial, it's just the US chooses to usually separate them.


This is nothing to do with my opinion on her guilt or innocence, it's just the bald facts of what's actually, technically, going on here.


It's less clear than this. You're right that there's no American analog which is what makes this tricky. In the U.S. an appellate court would not review evidence, it would say that the trial was procedurally defective and order a do-over. But the Italian appeals court did consider evidence and ruled that there was not enough evidence needed to convict Knox and Solecito and thus acquitted them. No new trial needed. But as you point out, that decision was subject to appeal. The U.S. may (and according to many experts will) say that an acquittal by a fact finder triggers double jeopardy. But for what it's worth apparently Alan Dershowitz thinks you're right.
 
2014-01-30 08:47:05 PM

Bungles: r1niceboy: CleanAndPure: And yet Americans all think she is innocent because an American would never do anything wrong overseas.

Seriously American media has been extremely biased in this case... backing the murderess.

I'm British and I think the British media have done everything but brand her as a witch because the victim was British. The US media seemed to want the trial to go on forever ending with her conviction. Then they could play the victim card. Truth told, nobody is sure whether she did it unless they had a horse in the race, in which case she's either an angel or a demon in human form.

I think that's an odd position to hold. I'm also British, and apart from the "Foxy Knoxy" headlines in the first few weeks, I think the British tabloids have been incredibly, bizarrely, restrained. It's almost a non-story. Which is, considering the British tabloids, odd.


I was there during the original trial, and in the US for the aftermath. The contrasts were stark, I can assure you. I think the US were in doubt, whereas the British tabloids were lingering over the evidence of the prosecution and dismissive of the defense's efforts. The Foxy Knoxy was also a bit odd as she was as sexy as a potato and about as intelligent.
 
2014-01-30 08:49:26 PM

r1niceboy: Bungles: r1niceboy: CleanAndPure: And yet Americans all think she is innocent because an American would never do anything wrong overseas.

Seriously American media has been extremely biased in this case... backing the murderess.

I'm British and I think the British media have done everything but brand her as a witch because the victim was British. The US media seemed to want the trial to go on forever ending with her conviction. Then they could play the victim card. Truth told, nobody is sure whether she did it unless they had a horse in the race, in which case she's either an angel or a demon in human form.

I think that's an odd position to hold. I'm also British, and apart from the "Foxy Knoxy" headlines in the first few weeks, I think the British tabloids have been incredibly, bizarrely, restrained. It's almost a non-story. Which is, considering the British tabloids, odd.

I was there during the original trial, and in the US for the aftermath. The contrasts were stark, I can assure you. I think the US were in doubt, whereas the British tabloids were lingering over the evidence of the prosecution and dismissive of the defense's efforts. The Foxy Knoxy was also a bit odd as she was as sexy as a potato and about as intelligent.


Do you have any idea how sexy Brits find potatoes?
 
2014-01-30 08:53:48 PM

MagicianNamedGob: Bungles: hardinparamedic: Bungles: China White Tea: Bungles:

This isn't double jeopardy,


You do understand that words have meanings, right?

Yes, and if you actually read my posts (and the 99% of the posts on virtually any int.law forum with a Knox thread) you'll see why few would say it is.

So she was never declared not guilty on an appeal of the case, and then tried again for the same charge she was found not guilty on?

No, that's the point. She was "Acquitted pending appeal", which gives her travel rights, and which some of the more lightweight news channels reported as "acquitted", because there's no exact analogue in the US. I made this point repeatedly in the last thread an age ago, that the trial was still technically on-going, and was repeatedly shouted down with the "She's free! She's cleared! Shut up!" shouting.

It was the second stage in a tri-part review. It's the same trial. The equivalent in the US would be like saying verdict and sentencing are different trials in the US, because they often happen separately. They're not. They're stages in the same trial, it's just the US chooses to usually separate them.


This is nothing to do with my opinion on her guilt or innocence, it's just the bald facts of what's actually, technically, going on here.

It's less clear than this. You're right that there's no American analog which is what makes this tricky. In the U.S. an appellate court would not review evidence, it would say that the trial was procedurally defective and order a do-over. But the Italian appeals court did consider evidence and ruled that there was not enough evidence needed to convict Knox and Solecito and thus acquitted them. No new trial needed. But as you point out, that decision was subject to appeal. The U.S. may (and according to many experts will) say that an acquittal by a fact finder triggers double jeopardy. But for what it's worth apparently Alan Dershowitz thinks you're right.


Given that this isn't a new thing in the Italian court system to happen (it's pretty regular for internal trials to bounce through the stringed-out appeal system), unless the diplomats were drunk in the early 80s when the treaty was drafted, I can't see how the possibility of a normal part of the Italian system - if thought by the US to be double jeopardy - wouldn't have been explicitly outlined as such in the agreement.

US extradition treaties don't tend to be sloppy.
 
2014-01-30 08:54:28 PM

Bungles: jso2897: Bungles: jso2897: Bungles: She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

It is double jeopardy under our law - just as the death penalty is, under theirs. And the John Kerry crap is just paranoid nonsense.
You admit that there is no real chance that Knox will ever be extradited, but invent a convenient plot by The Evil John Kerry.
So, you have created a narrative where you can be dead wrong, but still call yourself right.
Well - no point in my arguing with you further.

Ummm, it's nothing to do with "evil John Kerry". I rather like John Kerry. it's just that it's his decision. That's how your system works, if you're not familiar...

I know how the system works, professor. The point is, that if Kerry makes that decision, it will be for the simple, obvious reason that it is the right one. She is not subject to extradition under these circumstances. Kerry will not extradite her, because he should not. You can't provide any evidence to the contrary.


The system isn't based on your gut feeling on what the "right" one is or not, it's based on a) the legal wording of the extradition treaty (which would suggest extradition) and b) the internal US politics of a popular figure being extradited (which would suggests no extradition).

The balance he chooses, I suspect, will be the latter.


There is nothing in our treaty with Italy that requires us to extradite people to them in violation of our basic legal principles, or that makes the same requirement of them. This is what actually happens, and has nothing to do with whatever you imagine the "wording of the treaty" to be. You neither know what the treaty says, nor possess the legal expertise to interpret it. Neither do I - but i can observe what happens - from time to time, the Italians will refuse to extradite someone here, and sometimes, we refuse to extradite someone there. and there is no uproar, no incident, no breach of relations. We all just let it slide because .....reasons.
Now I guess I am supposed to accept that this is a "violation" of the treaty, despite the fact that nothing ever happens over it, and the person asking me to believe it possesses no more knowledge of the law than I. But I do like the way you have conceded she won't be extradited, but somehow you're right anyway.
 
2014-01-30 09:01:34 PM

jso2897: You neither know what the treaty says, nor possess the legal expertise to interpret it.


Actually, it's pretty simple stuff.  Only 10 pages long.  There's even a complete summary by the Justice Department.

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy%20International%20Extradition% 20 Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf
 
2014-01-30 09:01:51 PM

jso2897: Bungles: jso2897: Bungles: jso2897: Bungles: She won't be extradited, but that will be because John Kerry chooses not to, rather than his hand being forced by pretending this is a double jeopardy issue.

It is double jeopardy under our law - just as the death penalty is, under theirs. And the John Kerry crap is just paranoid nonsense.
You admit that there is no real chance that Knox will ever be extradited, but invent a convenient plot by The Evil John Kerry.
So, you have created a narrative where you can be dead wrong, but still call yourself right.
Well - no point in my arguing with you further.

Ummm, it's nothing to do with "evil John Kerry". I rather like John Kerry. it's just that it's his decision. That's how your system works, if you're not familiar...

I know how the system works, professor. The point is, that if Kerry makes that decision, it will be for the simple, obvious reason that it is the right one. She is not subject to extradition under these circumstances. Kerry will not extradite her, because he should not. You can't provide any evidence to the contrary.


The system isn't based on your gut feeling on what the "right" one is or not, it's based on a) the legal wording of the extradition treaty (which would suggest extradition) and b) the internal US politics of a popular figure being extradited (which would suggests no extradition).

The balance he chooses, I suspect, will be the latter.

There is nothing in our treaty with Italy that requires us to extradite people to them in violation of our basic legal principles, or that makes the same requirement of them. This is what actually happens, and has nothing to do with whatever you imagine the "wording of the treaty" to be. You neither know what the treaty says, nor possess the legal expertise to interpret it. Neither do I - but i can observe what happens - from time to time, the Italians will refuse to extradite someone here, and sometimes, we refuse to extradite someone there. and there is no upro ...


I'm not a lawyer specialising in transnational law in any sense, but I'm not unfamiliar with the various US-EU extradition treaties through my academic experience. I'm just saying what I think will happen. It is actually pretty unusual for the US to refuse an extradition request post-trial to Italy.
 
2014-01-30 09:01:57 PM

LrdPhoenix: jso2897:
It doesn't matter - it only matters that WE THINK IT IS. We don't hold the death penalty to be inhumane and unacceptable - but the Italians do - that's why they won't extradite people who we might put to death.
They don't observe the treaty when it conflicts with their values - why should we?

Uh, the extradition treaty explicitly states in Article IX that either party doesn't have to extradite someone for a crime where they might face the death penalty if they wouldn't face the death penalty for the same crime in the country they're going to be extradited from.  In fact, it states that it will be refused.  So, not extraditing people if they might face the death penalty here is completely within the terms of the treaty so long as Italy doesn't have the death penalty on the table for it.

Here are the exact words:
ARTICLE IX
Capital Punishment
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested
Party do not provide for such punishment for that offense, extradition shall be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as
the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.


Article 7 states a discretionary ground for refusal of extradition. It
provides that extradition may
be refused when the person sought is being
proceeded against by the requested State for the same act.


in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense"
 
2014-01-30 09:03:49 PM

jso2897: LrdPhoenix: jso2897:
It doesn't matter - it only matters that WE THINK IT IS. We don't hold the death penalty to be inhumane and unacceptable - but the Italians do - that's why they won't extradite people who we might put to death.
They don't observe the treaty when it conflicts with their values - why should we?

Uh, the extradition treaty explicitly states in Article IX that either party doesn't have to extradite someone for a crime where they might face the death penalty if they wouldn't face the death penalty for the same crime in the country they're going to be extradited from.  In fact, it states that it will be refused.  So, not extraditing people if they might face the death penalty here is completely within the terms of the treaty so long as Italy doesn't have the death penalty on the table for it.

Here are the exact words:
ARTICLE IX
Capital Punishment
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested
Party do not provide for such punishment for that offense, extradition shall be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as
the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.

Article 7 states a discretionary ground for refusal of extradition. It
provides that extradition may
be refused when the person sought is being
proceeded against by the requested State for the same act.


in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense"


That means being tried in Italy for a crime they have already been tired for in the US, which isn't relevant here.
 
2014-01-30 09:09:38 PM

CleanAndPure: And yet Americans all think she is innocent because an American would never do anything wrong overseas.


Not really. We just want her out of jail so there's still a chance she'll do that Playboy spread.
 
2014-01-30 09:13:10 PM

austin_millbarge: CleanAndPure: And yet Americans all think she is innocent because an American would never do anything wrong overseas.

Not really. We just want her out of jail so there's still a chance she'll do that Playboy spread.


I put it at 50/50 that this will be Kerry's official position.
 
2014-01-30 09:13:38 PM

Bungles: jso2897: LrdPhoenix: jso2897:
It doesn't matter - it only matters that WE THINK IT IS. We don't hold the death penalty to be inhumane and unacceptable - but the Italians do - that's why they won't extradite people who we might put to death.
They don't observe the treaty when it conflicts with their values - why should we?

Uh, the extradition treaty explicitly states in Article IX that either party doesn't have to extradite someone for a crime where they might face the death penalty if they wouldn't face the death penalty for the same crime in the country they're going to be extradited from.  In fact, it states that it will be refused.  So, not extraditing people if they might face the death penalty here is completely within the terms of the treaty so long as Italy doesn't have the death penalty on the table for it.

Here are the exact words:
ARTICLE IX
Capital Punishment
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested
Party do not provide for such punishment for that offense, extradition shall be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as
the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.

Article 7 states a discretionary ground for refusal of extradition. It
provides that extradition may
be refused when the person sought is being
proceeded against by the requested State for the same act.


in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense"

That means being tried in Italy for a crime they have already been tired for in the US, which isn't relevant here.


You're right - I need to quit posting. Can't copypasta, and can't even read. It was fun, but I can't brain anymore - guess we'll have to wait and see what happens - but then, we both have the same hunch about that.  I hope she didn't actually do it.
Imagine our embarrassment.
 
2014-01-30 09:15:39 PM

Bungles: jso2897: LrdPhoenix: jso2897:
It doesn't matter - it only matters that WE THINK IT IS. We don't hold the death penalty to be inhumane and unacceptable - but the Italians do - that's why they won't extradite people who we might put to death.
They don't observe the treaty when it conflicts with their values - why should we?

Uh, the extradition treaty explicitly states in Article IX that either party doesn't have to extradite someone for a crime where they might face the death penalty if they wouldn't face the death penalty for the same crime in the country they're going to be extradited from.  In fact, it states that it will be refused.  So, not extraditing people if they might face the death penalty here is completely within the terms of the treaty so long as Italy doesn't have the death penalty on the table for it.

Here are the exact words:
ARTICLE IX
Capital Punishment
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested
Party do not provide for such punishment for that offense, extradition shall be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as
the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.

Article 7 states a discretionary ground for refusal of extradition. It
provides that extradition may
be refused when the person sought is being
proceeded against by the requested State for the same act.


in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense"

That means being tried in Italy for a crime they have already been tired for in the US, which isn't relevant here.


Actually it means if someone commits the same offense against both the US and Italy (say, smuggling from one to the other or whatever) and we got a hold of them and are legally proceeding against them, Italy can go eat a dick if they want him, at least until we're done with them, and visa versa.

Not sure if it would apply to someone wanted for a murder here and a separate murder in Italy, and we're going ahead with charges already, etc. but probably.

Article 6 is the one he wants for double jeopardy.
 
2014-01-30 09:24:15 PM
So I went and googled for some legal opinions, and found a bunch. And I am not less confused.
If all the experts ringing in on this were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.
 
2014-01-30 09:39:55 PM
Probably because in complex legal matters involving the laws of two separate nations there rarely is anything remotely resembling a cut and dried conclusion.  Which, I suppose, can be applied to a lot of things and not just complex legal matters involving the laws of two nations.

I don't think she'll be extradited.  As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they turned her loose and she stepped foot back on US soil, she's a free woman.
 
2014-01-30 09:46:38 PM
i141.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-30 09:50:36 PM

jonas opines: walktoanarcade: Why is it so hard to believe?   The debil [sic] part is probably pure bunk, but what if it isn't? Some sick bastards actually do kill people in "rituals" on a fairly regular basis. Maybe you're weary and remember the cult hysteria of the 80s deep down inside?

It isn't like I'm faulting anyone for thinking she's innocent, as she may well be. Her story perfectly tickles my "Bitach Be-Guitly" bone.

Are you sure it doesn't tickle your "I want this bitach to be guilty" bone?


Why would I want her to be guilty?   There's lots of questionable stuff that I can and cannot prove, but none of it makes me want for any of the good to be bad. Just like people may fascinate, offend, amaze, or even scare me, none of them (owed of a pretty face, no less) make me want to banish my logic and go for the sleazy, easy balm of brainless witch-hunting.

And if I am wrong, she should disappear before she gets nabbed.
 
2014-01-30 09:51:41 PM

LrdPhoenix: As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they turned her loose and she stepped foot back on US soil, she's a free woman.


I'm pretty sure they knew that too, this is just for show.
 
2014-01-30 09:52:14 PM

Bonanza Jellybean: this thread is terrible and i farking hate all of you


{{HUGS}}
 
2014-01-30 09:53:10 PM

CleanAndPure: And yet Americans all think she is innocent because an American would never do anything wrong overseas.

Seriously American media has been extremely biased in this case... backing the murderess.


Mmmk.  How about this detailed breakdown...

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

How's that work for you?
 
2014-01-30 09:54:13 PM

AMANDA KNOX

MURDERED

TRAYVON MARTIN!

 
2014-01-30 10:07:43 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: AMANDA KNOX MURDERED TRAYVON MARTIN!


Not bad but needs more Nancy Grace.
 
Displayed 50 of 365 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report