Amanda Knox, retrial and possible extradition.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Amanda Knox, retrial and possible extradition.
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:13 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Cliffs- Amanda Knox was acquitted of the charges of murder in a 2007 killing of her roommate in Italy. The Italian supreme court rejected that ruling and has ordered a retrial.

Do you think that the U.S. should deny extradition when it comes to that? Italy retrying the case violates her American right that she cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Honestly, I think that the U.S. should definitely deny extradition while she is on American soil. For her that becomes like another small sentence, because if the U.S. basically grants her asylum, she can never leave the country again.

In the case of asylum, does Italy create an international incident and come try to get her?
Mar 26, 2013 9:13am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:19 AM
I'm no legal expert but I think the US should deny extradition for the reasons you said. I didn't realize she was in the states when I heard they wanted to retry her and I thought why the fuck is she still in Italy after all that?
Mar 26, 2013 9:19am
Fly4Fun's avatar

Fly4Fun

Senior Member

7,730 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:35 AM
I'm not well versed on the subject, but I would have to imagine the US extraditing Knox to Italy for that purpose could easily be construed as her being subject for the same offense twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. And it wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the US Fed Gov't would be the actor doing that as it would require them to actually extradite her.

And while I don't have any procedural or substantive knowledge about the Italian courts, I've heard this whole process referred to many times as "Kangaroo Courts."

I don't think she should be extradited on a constitutional basis. But that's my fairly uninformed opinion because of limited knowledge regarding the situation and law.
Mar 26, 2013 9:35am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:40 AM
Does the practical matter that she was likely involved in murder play into the decision?
Mar 26, 2013 9:40am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:43 AM
queencitybuckeye;1414670 wrote:Does the practical matter that she was likely involved in murder play into the decision?
I did not follow the trial at all so I don't have an opinion on her innocence, but was she not found innocent?
Mar 26, 2013 9:43am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:46 AM
FatHobbit;1414676 wrote:I did not follow the trial at all so I don't have an opinion on her innocence, but was she not found innocent?
Her conviction was reversed. However, OJ Simpson was also acquitted and I'm as sure as I can be that he turned two people into human Pez dispensers.

I just wonder if the likelihood of her possible involvment in the matter should be considered by those American authorites that would help determine whether should be returned. My opinion is yes.
Mar 26, 2013 9:46am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:49 AM
queencitybuckeye;1414682 wrote:Her conviction was reversed. However, OJ Simpson was also acquitted and I'm as sure as I can be that he turned two people into human Pez dispensers.
Personally I think the Guede guy raped her and killed her. His conviction has stood through all appeals. I think it's just a witch hunt on the American and the guy who dared sleep with an American.
Mar 26, 2013 9:49am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Mar 26, 2013 9:59 AM
queencitybuckeye;1414682 wrote:Her conviction was reversed. However, OJ Simpson was also acquitted and I'm as sure as I can be that he turned two people into human Pez dispensers.
I do think OJ was guilty, but I don't think he should be retried.
queencitybuckeye;1414682 wrote:I just wonder if the likelihood of her possible involvment in the matter should be considered by those American authorites that would help determine whether should be returned. My opinion is yes.
I'm not sure guilt or innocence should be considered if they are using double jeopardy as their defense.
Mar 26, 2013 9:59am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:09 AM
The amount of evidence against OJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that of Knox. She might be quite a bit weird and possibly was involved (although the Italian government provided very little evidence of such), but it isn't as if the Italian kangaroo court didn't have the opportunity to actually show she was guilty of charged. The entire case was a keystone kop routine, and embarrassed most Italians with its buffoonery. Not sure subjecting her to more of the same would result in any truth or justice.
Mar 26, 2013 10:09am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:12 AM
FatHobbit;1414700 wrote:I do think OJ was guilty, but I don't think he should be retried.
Nor do I, but if the crimes took place in countries that don't have or have different double jeopardy rules, have at it.


I'm not sure guilt or innocence should be considered if they are using double jeopardy as their defense.
If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court".
Mar 26, 2013 10:12am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:16 AM
LJ;1414651 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Do you think that the U.S. should deny extradition when it comes to that? Italy retrying the case violates her American right that she cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
That is a right of an American in the American court system. But do our American rights overrule our actions outside of the US? Is this a case of "commit a crime on international soil, follow their rules"?
Mar 26, 2013 10:16am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:16 AM
"If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court"."

Not when I'm back in the U.S. it doesn't.

To answer the original poster's question - no, the U.S. should not extradite her and I doubt Italy will beclown itself more by asking for such. They had 4 years to take care of the situation and looked like idiots.
Mar 26, 2013 10:16am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:16 AM
queencitybuckeye;1414711 wrote:Nor do I, but if the crimes took place in countries that don't have or have different double jeopardy rules, have at it.





If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court".
This. Didn't see this posted when I posted mine.

Not sure of the answer, just provoking thought on it.
Mar 26, 2013 10:16am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:17 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;1414714 wrote:"If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court"."

Not when I'm back in the U.S. it doesn't.
So if you commit a crime on another country, as long as you make it back to U.S. soil, you are good?
Mar 26, 2013 10:17am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:20 AM
It bloody is if I'm found not guilty/innocent and allowed to go back.

What's the other answer? That Italy (or some other banana republic) can keep demanding extradition time and time and time (add infinity) over again because they can't get their $&%^ together?

Have you followed this case at all?
Mar 26, 2013 10:20am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:21 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;1414714 wrote:"If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court"."

Not when I'm back in the U.S. it doesn't.
Are you saying should I commit a crime abroad and manage to return to the U.S., they should have no jurisdiction and I'm off the hook?
Mar 26, 2013 10:21am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:22 AM
WebFire;1414716 wrote:So if you commit a crime on another country, as long as you make it back to U.S. soil, you are good?

This is not the case. She was already tried and acquitted.
Mar 26, 2013 10:22am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:23 AM
queencitybuckeye;1414720 wrote:Are you saying should I commit a crime abroad and manage to return to the U.S., they should have no jurisdiction and I'm off the hook?

Again not even the same.
Mar 26, 2013 10:23am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:23 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;1414719 wrote:It bloody is if I'm found not guilty/innocent and allowed to go back.

What's the other answer? That Italy (or some other banana republic) can keep demanding extradition time and time and time (add infinity) over again because they can't get their $&%^ together?

Have you followed this case at all?
Yes, it's highly unlikely she was NOT involved in the crime, notwithstanding the quality of the court system there. Two different issues.
Mar 26, 2013 10:23am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:23 AM
queencitybuckeye;1414711 wrote:Nor do I, but if the crimes took place in countries that don't have or have different double jeopardy rules, have at it.

If I travel to another country, the rule of law I should follow should be theirs, not ours, even if we characterize their system as a "kangaroo court".
WebFire;1414712 wrote:That is a right of an American in the American court system. But do our American rights overrule our actions outside of the US? Is this a case of "commit a crime on international soil, follow their rules"?
WebFire;1414716 wrote:So if you commit a crime on another country, as long as you make it back to U.S. soil, you are good?
I definitely agree that if you are in a foreign country that their laws apply. But IMHO if they try you and find you innocent and you make it back to US soil you should not be extradited.
Mar 26, 2013 10:23am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:23 AM
LJ;1414724 wrote:Again not even the same.
How so?
Mar 26, 2013 10:23am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:24 AM
LJ;1414723 wrote:This is not the case. She was already tried and acquitted.
So what? She didn't commit the crime here. You are using U.S. law in another country.
Mar 26, 2013 10:24am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:26 AM
FatHobbit;1414726 wrote:I definitely agree that if you are in a foreign country that their laws apply. But IMHO if they try you and find you innocent and you make it back to US soil you should not be extradited.
And I'm not saying that is wrong. I don't really know what I think yet. My biggest question is whether our law of not being tried twice applies since the crime was committed somewhere where that is not a protected right.
Mar 26, 2013 10:26am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:28 AM
WebFire;1414730 wrote:So what? She didn't commit the crime here. You are using U.S. law in another country.
And we are using U.S. law in our country. We don't extradite our citizens based on a whim. No other country does - why should we be different?
Mar 26, 2013 10:28am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 26, 2013 10:29 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;1414733 wrote:And we are using U.S. law in our country. We don't extradite our citizens based on a whim. No other country does - why should we be different?
I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it on a whim. I am merely asking if our law protects us from international or other country laws, when the crime was not committed here.
Mar 26, 2013 10:29am