Amanda Knox

[vandermolen]

Over here in the UK it is being reported as a hearts and minds media campaign in the US, with her retaining the services of a spin doctor and carefully staging her appearances. Seemingly it is working with even some on this thread claiming there is no evidence against her. Meaning they cannot have been reading the trial progress with any real attention, as whether accepted as vital or not, there was certainly evidence leading to a cause for a trial.

I don't think the UK opinion is calling for blood at all. But there has been comment that the victim gets lost in the PR battle.

Mike

I totally agree with this.

[Sammy]

You mean naive as in assuming there are better systems of justice than in the US? Yeah, we all know how OJ was innocent.

I don't think OJ was innocent either, but it was a fair trial.  Given the problem with the gloves, the botched DNA evidence and defense attorneys far superior to the prosecuting attorneys, "not guilty" was a reasonable conclusion. 

[Sef]

I don't think OJ was innocent either, but it was a fair trial.  Given the problem with the gloves, the botched DNA evidence and defense attorneys far superior to the prosecuting attorneys, "not guilty" was a reasonable conclusion.

A fair trial under US law - but was justice served? Can we be complacent when how you look or how deep your pockets are can affect whether you are found guilty or not? And yet a solution is also not clear. How can you prevent someone from using all their resources to defend themselves? If justice is predicated on equality then can there ever be true justice in a capitalistic society, or at least in one that allows a market in legal justice? But I digress into politics and so will shut up.

[Sammy]

A fair trial under US law - but was justice served? Can we be complacent when how you look or how deep your pockets are can affect whether you are found guilty or not? And yet a solution is also not clear. How can you prevent someone from using all their resources to defend themselves? If justice is predicated on equality then can there ever be true justice in a capitalistic society, or at least in one that allows a market in legal justice? But I digress into politics and so will shut up.

1.  Justice was served.
2.  It's a good thing that a defendant can buy the best legal services available.  Otherwise, the big G would hold all the cards.
3.  Capitalism is the best system we have.  It surely beats socialism, communism, dictatorships and royalty.

[knight66]

Some defendants can buy the best that money can buy, most cannot. So what are you actually saying about justice for those without means?

Mike

[Todd]

How can you prevent someone from using all their resources to defend themselves?

This is a rather terrifying question.

2.  It's a good thing that a defendant can buy the best legal services available.  Otherwise, the big G would hold all the cards.
3.  Capitalism is the best system we have.  It surely beats socialism, communism, dictatorships and royalty.

Agree wholeheartedly with these two statements.  I'm not certain some grand, abstract concept of "justice" was served, but the concept is a bit variable anyway. 

[Brian]

How can you prevent someone from using all their resources to defend themselves?

Why would you want to do this? Why would you deprive someone of the ability to defend themselves well just because you think they don't deserve it? Would you do this on a case-by-case basis after guessing how likely it is that they're guilty? "OJ is clearly guilty, he shouldn't get fancy lawyers. The West Memphis Three are clearly innocent, they should get high-powered defense attorneys." Cart, horse, etc.

[Brian]

Some defendants can buy the best that money can buy, most cannot. So what are you actually saying about justice for those without means?

Mike

Apparently the solution to some people being hungry is to starve everyone else.

[knight66]

I wonder if you wilfully misunderstood me? I have no objection to people sending whatever they have/can on defending themselves. But it follows to me that the connected point of it being just as well, as otherwise the Gov would keep winning, and thereby confound justice.......implies that justice is often failed unless the accused is wealthy. So, again, if the original poster and several others are happy with that model of justice, it is a narrow and perhaps very exclusive road to travel.

Mike

[The new erato]

So, again, if the original poster and several others are happy with that model of justice, it is a narrow and perhaps very exclusive road to travel.

Mike

Which has only the lawyers, instead of the obviously dreaded big G, winning.

[Sef]

Why would you want to do this? Why would you deprive someone of the ability to defend themselves well just because you think they don't deserve it? Would you do this on a case-by-case basis after guessing how likely it is that they're guilty? "OJ is clearly guilty, he shouldn't get fancy lawyers. The West Memphis Three are clearly innocent, they should get high-powered defense attorneys." Cart, horse, etc.

You are exactly right. That's why it's tricky. You couldn't possible prevent (or want to prevent) someone from doing everything in their power to defend themselves, yet not everyone has equal power. So the corollary is that not everyone can defend themselves equally. I don't pretend to have any answer to that, but just state logic, and say that it doesn't sit right with me. In a democracy shouldn't we question something if it seems at odds with our values, even if we can't think of an answer?

[Sammy]

Some defendants can buy the best that money can buy, most cannot. So what are you actually saying about justice for those without means?

Mike

They get a public defender who could be excellent, good, okay or crummy.

[North Star]

I don't think OJ was innocent either, but it was a fair trial.  Given [...] defense attorneys far superior to the prosecuting attorneys, "not guilty" was a reasonable conclusion.

Yes, the guy with the most expensive lawyers must be found "not guilty", that's what justice is all about. 

[Sammy]

You are exactly right. That's why it's tricky. You couldn't possible prevent (or want to prevent) someone from doing everything in their power to defend themselves, yet not everyone has equal power. So the corollary is that not everyone can defend themselves equally.

That's life.  The folks with the most money have many advantages - economic, political, social, legal, etc.  That's the point of rising to the top (if being at the top is a big deal for you).

[Sammy]

Yes, the guy with the most expensive lawyers must be found "not guilty", that's what justice is all about. 

There are plenty of times when the guy with the most expensive lawyer goes directly to prison.

Would you prefer a system where every defendant has to pick from a pool of public defenders?

[Brian]

I wonder if you wilfully misunderstood me?

I was adding on to your post to disagree with somebody else. Sorry about that.

[North Star]

There are plenty of times when the guy with the most expensive lawyer goes directly to prison.

Would you prefer a system where every defendant has to pick from a pool of public defenders?

Sure.

Something akin to that, perhaps.

[Sef]

That's life.  The folks with the most money have many advantages - economic, political, social, legal, etc.  That's the point of rising to the top (if being at the top is a big deal for you).

I have a problem with this. Unapologetically cut from wikipedia (but cited from various dictionaries), "Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice."
Now this is something I can buy into.

[North Star]

I have a problem with this. Unapologetically cut from wikipedia (but cited from various dictionaries),  ...
Now this is something I can buy into.

+1.

[Sammy]

I have a problem with this. Unapologetically cut from wikipedia (but cited from various dictionaries), "Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice."
Now this is something I can buy into.

-1