Why is Amanda forever on trial - doesn't double jeopardy exist in Italy.
Trial after trial .... what happens to her now - can she be forced to return to
Italy?
Quote from: suzyq on January 30, 2014, 12:53:09 PMTrial after trial .... what happens to her now
She asks the Italians for best three out of five?
Quote from: suzyq on January 30, 2014, 12:53:09 PM
Why is Amanda forever on trial - doesn't double jeopardy exist in Italy.
Trial after trial .... what happens to her now - can she be forced to return to
Italy?
No, she can't. The US doesn't recognize convictions that violate double jeopardy. If Italy applies for an extradition writ, it will be denied. Rightly so, they have no grip on how to run a court system apparently.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 30, 2014, 01:13:40 PM
No, she can't. The US doesn't recognize convictions that violate double jeopardy. If Italy applies for an extradition writ, it will be denied. Rightly so, they have no grip on how to run a court system apparently.
8)
I was wondering if the US would comply with the Italian's conviction and hand her over, if that's even how it works at this point. The trial(s) seemed to be a mess.
In the UK we have quite rightly abandoned double jeopardy as advances in forensic science are so often bringing up new evidence. Without commenting on this particular case, someone who is guilty should never feel safe.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 30, 2014, 01:13:40 PM
No, she can't. The US doesn't recognize convictions that violate double jeopardy. If Italy applies for an extradition writ, it will be denied. Rightly so, they have no grip on how to run a court system apparently.
8)
I'm sure that the West Memphis Three would agree...
Quote from: North Star on January 31, 2014, 08:52:36 AM
I'm sure that the West Memphis Three would agree...
As it is now, the Italian court hasn't issued an extradition request. Speculation is they know it will be denied and lead to a years-long court battle, so better to take a paper victory. Always subject to change though.
The WM3 isn't remotely like sending an American citizen to a foreign prison due to a double jeopardy conviction in a non-American court. Just sayin'. In any case, surely you aren't asserting that the WM3 were innocent! ::)
8)
This all sounds like you know that she is innocent! I wonder what you would be thinking if it wasn't a good looking young white middle class girl? And because the justice system is different in Italy it doesn't make it any more unjust than here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25989342 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25989342)
I'm sure that if the crime had been committed in the US and the culprit found in Italy you'd have something different to say about extradition. And in any case it would depend on the extradition treaty and it is very unlikely that an international treaty would have a provision that the suspect must be found guilty under the provisions of the second country - that would be pointless.
Think further. If this was a young black guy found guilty of murdering a white middle class girl in Texas or Missouri, then we would execute him (in an inhumane way) - and have a lot of people justifying it because he had it coming to him - hypocracy!
Quote from: Sef on January 31, 2014, 11:55:51 AM
This all sounds like you know that she is innocent! I wonder what you would be thinking if it wasn't a good looking young white middle class girl? And because the justice system is different in Italy it doesn't make it any more unjust than here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25989342 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25989342)
I'm sure that if the crime had been committed in the US and the culprit found in Italy you'd have something different to say about extradition. And in any case it would depend on the extradition treaty and it is very unlikely that an international treaty would have a provision that the suspect must be found guilty under the provisions of the second country - that would be pointless.
Think further. If this was a young black guy found guilty of murdering a white middle class girl in Texas or Missouri, then we would execute him (in an inhumane way) - and have a lot of people justifying it because he had it coming to him - hypocracy!
The problem is, you don't
know if she is guilty any more than I do. The first trial was such a media circus, the Italian press was far more hung up on the pretty white girl (Foxy Knoxy, IIRC ::) ) than I would ever be, even if I wasn't too old for such things. If the so-called facts of the case have ever been presented accurately in the press, then the entire thing consists of either circumstantial evidence which has no probative value, or forensic evidence which has a multitude of possible explanations (she lived there, why wouldn't her DNA be present? for example). I don't personally have any dog in this fight. If she did it I would be pleased to see her jailed. But her trial doesn't belong in the press, either Italian, American or British.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 31, 2014, 12:21:42 PM
The problem is, you don't know if she is guilty any more than I do. The first trial was such a media circus, the Italian press was far more hung up on the pretty white girl (Foxy Knoxy, IIRC ::) ) than I would ever be, even if I wasn't too old for such things. If the so-called facts of the case have ever been presented accurately in the press, then the entire thing consists of either circumstantial evidence which has no probative value, or forensic evidence which has a multitude of possible explanations (she lived there, why wouldn't her DNA be present? for example). I don't personally have any dog in this fight. If she did it I would be pleased to see her jailed. But her trial doesn't belong in the press, either Italian, American or British.
8)
Well I can certainly agree with all of this. As the article said, let's hope that cool heads prevail when the extradition process begins and it doesn't become an us versus them match.
I've done some reading on the case. Certainly by the American standard of "reasonable doubt," she is not guilty of the crime. The Italian police handled the evidence with carelessness that's below average even for Italian police; none of the witnesses' stories make much sense; the prosecution's description of Knox sounds like blatant exploitation. I don't know if the Italian system has the "reasonable doubt" standard, but it clearly doesn't have the double jeopardy rule. What's happening is unfair to her.
Quote from: Brian on January 31, 2014, 01:35:52 PM
I've done some reading on the case. Certainly by the American standard of "reasonable doubt," she is not guilty of the crime. The Italian police handled the evidence with carelessness that's below average even for Italian police; none of the witnesses' stories make much sense; the prosecution's description of Knox sounds like blatant exploitation. I don't know if the Italian system has the "reasonable doubt" standard, but it clearly doesn't have the double jeopardy rule. What's happening is unfair to her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Appellate_Courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Appellate_Courts)
From a BBC web site: "The Court of Cassation ruling last March meant the latest hearing in Florence was a re-run of the appeals process, - so technically not a new trial but a continuation of the original one."
"The case has been described as one of the highest profile murder trials in recent Italian history. That is partly because of the young age of both victim and defendants and partly because of media interest in the alleged sexual nature of Meredith Kercher's death. "I don't remember any case which has been as highly publicised and where the countries have taken sides,'' noted defence attorney Alan Dershowitz told the AP news agency. "I think it's fair to say that the vast number of Americans think she is innocent and a substantial number of Italians think she is guilty,'' he said."
But how can that be? Surely they are all hearing the same thing? Is it being presented differently for local consumption? Can anyone rely on anything they may have heard about the case? As I wasn't there I can never know the facts, and I'm not going to judge based on potentially biased media reports, or on a potentially lying defendant. And, being a dual American/UK citizen, I have no side to take in any case. My thoughts are that if the process has been legally followed in Italy, and that she has been found guilty through all the appeals processes, and that a treaty exists to extradite such a person, then under what grounds could you refuse to extradite a convicted criminal? If you didn't like the legal system then you wouldn't have signed the treaty. If there is a history of unjust convictions (be careful US) then you wouldn't have signed the treaty. Unless there is a clause that says that if the convicted criminal is eminently shagable she should not be extradited, I cannot see the justification.
By the way, this isn't just anti-American. It works the other way round too. The British guy with Asbergers wanted for hacking for instance. The British government refused to extradite him to America based (really) on public opinion last year. No different. Xenophobia and nationalism (and racism) still exists today throughout the world. It bugs me.
Quote from: Sef on January 31, 2014, 03:27:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Appellate_Courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Appellate_Courts)
From a BBC web site: "The Court of Cassation ruling last March meant the latest hearing in Florence was a re-run of the appeals process, - so technically not a new trial but a continuation of the original one."
"The case has been described as one of the highest profile murder trials in recent Italian history. That is partly because of the young age of both victim and defendants and partly because of media interest in the alleged sexual nature of Meredith Kercher's death. "I don't remember any case which has been as highly publicised and where the countries have taken sides,'' noted defence attorney Alan Dershowitz told the AP news agency. "I think it's fair to say that the vast number of Americans think she is innocent and a substantial number of Italians think she is guilty,'' he said."
But how can that be? Surely they are all hearing the same thing? Is it being presented differently for local consumption? Can anyone rely on anything they may have heard about the case? As I wasn't there I can never know the facts, and I'm not going to judge based on potentially biased media reports, or on a potentially lying defendant. And, being a dual American/UK citizen, I have no side to take in any case. My thoughts are that if the process has been legally followed in Italy, and that she has been found guilty through all the appeals processes, and that a treaty exists to extradite such a person, then under what grounds could you refuse to extradite a convicted criminal? If you didn't like the legal system then you wouldn't have signed the treaty. If there is a history of unjust convictions (be careful US) then you wouldn't have signed the treaty. Unless there is a clause that says that if the convicted criminal is eminently shagable she should not be extradited, I cannot see the justification.
By the way, this isn't just anti-American. It works the other way round too. The British guy with Asbergers wanted for hacking for instance. The British government refused to extradite him to America based (really) on public opinion last year. No different. Xenophobia and nationalism (and racism) still exists today throughout the world. It bugs me.
It doesn't bug me at all. FWIW, I don't think Obama would allow her to be forced to return to Italy for a long prison term; the evidence just isn't there. If Obama does force her, I'd be okay with impeaching the man - don't screw a fellow American.
Quote from: Sef on January 31, 2014, 03:27:01 PMthen under what grounds could you refuse to extradite a convicted criminal?
Power. The US is generally far better at pressuring other countries into extraditing wanted persons than giving into requests to do the same, at least if there is an interest in not extraditing the person under consideration. Sometimes the US fails to get their man (or woman), and sometimes they just hand over criminals, but handing over an American citizen on the basis of three trials with two different outcomes may be politically difficult.
But first, the Italians have to finish their legal processes, which as I understand it are not quite done, and then the Italian government would have to start extradition proceedings with the State Department and Department of Justice, and Ms Knox has the right to fight the process in court, all of which can take a very long time, possibly years. In addition to potentially being a pawn in international politics, she could potentially be an issue in 2016 if this drags on long enough and she keeps on getting in front of cameras.
This isn't necessarily fair, of course, but that's a different issue, and it has nothing to do with her actual guilt or innocence.
Quote from: Sef on January 31, 2014, 11:55:51 AM
This all sounds like you know that she is innocent! I wonder what you would be thinking if it wasn't a good looking young white middle class girl? And because the justice system is different in Italy it doesn't make it any more unjust than here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25989342 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25989342)
I'm sure that if the crime had been committed in the US and the culprit found in Italy you'd have something different to say about extradition.
I think it's the fact that consciously or not, many tend to support they fellow citizens. Paradoxically, in Italy now there's also the case of two italian soldiers that have been accused of murder in India. And a lot of people here support them like they have not killed two men.
My sympathy in this appalling crime is entirely with the British victim, Meredith Kercher, who has been largely forgotten in the media circus. I have to say that I have little sympathy for Amanda Knox after she implicated a completely innocent person in the crime and her former boyfriend appears to have been trying to escape from the country. None of this makes them guilty of course but if the Italian Supreme Court upholds the original verdict I would hope that the US would extradite her to Italy.
Quote from: Sammy on January 31, 2014, 04:08:26 PM
It doesn't bug me at all. FWIW, I don't think Obama would allow her to be forced to return to Italy for a long prison term; the evidence just isn't there. If Obama does force her, I'd be okay with impeaching the man - don't screw a fellow American.
So Americans are free to murder all over the world as long as they can make it to home base before being caught? I hope that isn't your general position but only referring to this case since you consider he evidence weak?
I also refer to vandermolens finely considered post.
Quote from: vandermolen on February 01, 2014, 08:44:26 AM
My sympathy in this appalling crime is entirely with the British victim, Meredith Kercher, who has been largely forgotten in the media circus. I have to say that I have little sympathy for Amanda Knox after she implicated a completely innocent person in the crime
She did do time for that. Who knows what stupid shit I would have done at 20 if I were alone and being threatened by the police in a foreign country in a language I barely knew.
As for whether she is guilty or not, what I do remember from the time of the trial was that the prosecutor was a complete nut who made up a ridiculous "satanic sex game" theory of the crime. Shades of the Satanic Panic that the U.S. went through in the 80s/90s.
Quote from: Daverz on February 01, 2014, 11:31:17 AM
She did do time for that. Who knows what stupid shit I would have done at 20 if I were alone and being threatened by the police in a foreign country in a language I barely knew.
As for whether she is guilty or not, what I do remember from the time of the trial was that the prosecutor was a complete nut who made up a ridiculous "satanic sex game" theory of the crime. Shades of the Satanic Panic that the U.S. went through in the 80s/90s.
I doubt if Amanda Knox will ever be extradited but I do not think that being 20 years old is too young to be responsible for your actions, even under great pressure and surely protesting your innocence doesn't need to involve incriminating a completely blameless person. At what age do you become responsible for your actions? My own daughter was studying at the same university as the victim (and I'm talking about Meredith Kercher and not Amanda Knox), is a similar age and also did a year abroad (a very happy one in The Netherlands, where I had the great pleasure of meeting two fellow members of this forum). I guess that you have to expect people in the UK to be less sympathetic to Miss Knox than those in the USA.
One wonders how many would have cared if she hadn't been a "looker".
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 30, 2014, 01:13:40 PM
No, she can't. The US doesn't recognize convictions that violate double jeopardy. If Italy applies for an extradition writ, it will be denied. Rightly so, they have no grip on how to run a court system apparently.
8)
This strikes me as impossible. I don't know any specifics about Italian law of criminal procedure, but I don't simply believe that it doesn't recognize the double jeopardy principle.
A criminal trial after another, both of them about the same facts are not always an indication of violation of the double jeopardy. For instance, if the first trial has become null and void.
That said, Italians are not a primitive tribe in the heart of a lost jungle, these guys (to mention only the XXth C.) were the greatest professors of procedure in all Europe (Carnelutti, Calamandrei, Chiovenda and so).
Quote from: Gordo on February 02, 2014, 09:24:31 AM
This strikes me as impossible. I don't know any specifics about Italian law of criminal procedure, but I don't simply believe that it doesn't recognize the double jeopardy principle.
A criminal trial after another, both of them about the same facts are not always an indication of violation of the double jeopardy. For instance, if the first trial has become null and void.
That said, Italians are not a primitive tribe in the heart of a lost jungle, these guys (to mention only the XXth C.) were the greatest professors of procedure in all Europe (Carnelutti, Calamandrei, Chiovenda and so).
This is true - I'm no expert either, but I saw it reported that this latest part of the trial should be considered a continuance of the original trial, not a new one.
I too wonder is there would be such a fuss if the defendant was someone who was less photogenic/ pure/ innocent looking!
Quote from: vandermolen on February 01, 2014, 11:29:31 PM
I doubt if Amanda Knox will ever be extradited but I do not think that being 20 years old is too young to be responsible for your actions,
She served 4 years of a prison sentence. There's no evidence she had any responsibility for her roommate's death.
Quote from: Sef on February 02, 2014, 02:30:21 PM
I too wonder is there would be such a fuss if the defendant was someone who was less photogenic/ pure/ innocent looking!
Well the only people making a big deal about that seem to be those who are pro extradition... the anti extradition people seem to be more concerned with things like "double jeopardy" and "law enforcement procedure" and "DNA evidence" and so on...
It's interesting to see how Alan Dershowitz comments all these same issues:
http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/alan-dershowitz-amanda-knox-murder-trial/2014/01/31/id/550244
Quote from: Gordo on February 02, 2014, 05:52:19 PM
It's interesting to see how Alan Dershowitz comments all these same issues:
http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/alan-dershowitz-amanda-knox-murder-trial/2014/01/31/id/550244
"I would say that there are thousands of Americans in jail today on the basis of far less evidence than there is against Amanda Knox," Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor, said.
Of course, anyone who's done some reading on America's prison system would agree that this says a lot about American jails, where minor drug possession crimes result in hefty sentences and many states will refuse to stop the executions of inmates who are known to be innocent.
Quote from: amw on February 02, 2014, 04:15:45 PM
Well the only people making a big deal about that seem to be those who are pro extradition... the anti extradition people seem to be more concerned with things like "double jeopardy" and "law enforcement procedure" and "DNA evidence" and so on...
From the article:
"I have to tell you, in 50 years of practicing law, I had never seen a more one-sided presentation by the media in the United States of the case. Everybody is saying there's no evidence against her and she's totally innocent. It's just not true."
In America, everybody's ignoring the victim, everybody is pretending as if the Italian court system is the Iranian court system, and as if they made up all of the evidence against her."
As to why he believes that is so, Dershowitz said:
"One word: she's pretty and she doesn't look like she did it and Americans care about what people look like. She's the all-American young woman and we don't care about the evidence."
I suggest that the "pro-extradition" people either don't live in the States or refuse to be hoodwinked by the media.
Quote from: Daverz on February 02, 2014, 03:52:07 PM
She served 4 years of a prison sentence. There's no evidence she had any responsibility for her roommate's death.
Presumably there must have been some evidence otherwise she would not have been convicted in the first place. If she is innocent of course she should be free, but the fact that she kept changing her story and blamed an innocent party does not show her in the best light (unlike the photos and stage-managed media appearances).
Quote from: Sef on February 03, 2014, 08:56:04 AMI suggest that the "pro-extradition" people either don't live in the States or refuse to be hoodwinked by the media.
It seems to me that in order to be pro-extradition, extradition needs to be requested by the Italian government. Otherwise, pro-extradition people are really advocating extraordinary rendition.
Quote from: Todd on February 04, 2014, 12:10:55 PM
It seems to me that in order to be pro-extradition, extradition needs to be requested by the Italian government. Otherwise, pro-extradition people are really advocating extraordinary rendition.
Indeed. Due process MUST take place. I only advocate that the court of public opinion should not determine the USA's response to any request, particularly since the public have been led by a less than impartial media campaign.
Quote from: The new erato on February 01, 2014, 09:58:51 AM
So Americans are free to murder all over the world as long as they can make it to home base before being caught? I hope that isn't your general position but only referring to this case since you consider he evidence weak?
Relax - it's one case.
Quote from: Sef on February 04, 2014, 01:54:41 PMI only advocate that the court of public opinion should not determine the USA's response to any request, particularly since the public have been led by a less than impartial media campaign.
Public opinion may or may not be especially important. Other US-Italy relationship issues may end up being far more important. And there is always the chance that the Italian government requests extradition, the US federal government is willing to extradite, but a US court blocks it, in which case, due process will be served, and Ms Knox will be free even with a murder conviction in Italy. I wonder if all people who advocate due process but secretly, or not so secretly, want Ms Knox to go to prison will call that due process, or something else. You might be fine with it, but would everyone?
Quote from: vandermolen on February 04, 2014, 11:46:54 AM
Presumably there must have been some evidence otherwise she would not have been convicted in the first place.
You can't seriously be that naive.
Quote from: Daverz on February 04, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
You can't seriously be that naive.
You mean naive as in assuming there are better systems of justice than in the US? Yeah, we all know how OJ was innocent.
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
Quote from: The new erato on February 04, 2014, 10:08:36 PM
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 was sure, sooner or latter O.J. Simpson's trial would be mentioned here.
BTW, maybe is worth to recall that Alan Dershowitz was appellate adviser for the defense of O.J. (not to mention the von Büllow case). :P
Quote from: Gordo on February 05, 2014, 04:31:52 AM
I was sure, sooner or latter O.J. Simpson's trial would be mentioned here.
BTW, maybe is worth to recall that Alan Dershowitz was appellate adviser for the defense of O.J. (not to mention the von Büllow case). :P
Someone had to do it. The point being that no system of justice is infallible, and that a LOT of other factors than pure evidence are at play when the object is rich, famous or beautiful - some of these factors of course being closely connected.
Quote from: The new erato on February 05, 2014, 06:20:51 AMSomeone had to do it.
The glove did not fit. The jury had to acquit.
Quote from: Sef on February 03, 2014, 08:56:04 AM
I suggest that the "pro-extradition" people either don't live in the States or refuse to be hoodwinked by the media.
Well, it's convenient to blame "the media" for things; it's abstract and nicely vague.
Journalism however serves an important purpose—it remains the most reliable way for the average person to get information about world events they are unable to witness personally. Unless you are actually involved with this case, you also got all your information about it from "the media". The article you quote comes from "the media" as well, for instance.
I suggest that people avoid assuming others hold dissenting views because they are less intelligent, or more suggestible.
Quote from: amw on February 05, 2014, 06:35:55 AM
Well, it's convenient to blame "the media" for things; it's abstract and nicely vague.
Journalism however serves an important purpose—it remains the most reliable way for the average person to get information about world events they are unable to witness personally. Unless you are actually involved with this case, you also got all your information about it from "the media". The article you quote comes from "the media" as well, for instance.
I suggest that people avoid assuming others hold dissenting views because they are less intelligent, or more suggestible.
I think you misunderstand me. My point is that there are opposing views, and what you might have heard might not be true. In fact the only thing I wanted to say about this whole affair is that Justice should prevail - and I don't think many people would argue with that.
Quote from: knight66 on February 04, 2014, 11:21:08 PM
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.
Quote from: The new erato on February 04, 2014, 10:08:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Sammy on February 05, 2014, 09:27:49 AM
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. :)
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 10:23:52 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 10:23:52 AMHow can you prevent someone from using all their resources to defend themselves?
This is a rather terrifying question.
Quote from: Sammy on February 05, 2014, 10:44:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 10:23:52 AMHow 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.
Quote from: knight66 on February 05, 2014, 10:48:33 AM
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.
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
Quote from: knight66 on February 05, 2014, 11:03:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Brian on February 05, 2014, 10:49:27 AM
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?
Quote from: knight66 on February 05, 2014, 10:48:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Sammy on February 05, 2014, 09:27:49 AM
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. ::)
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 11:23:51 AM
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).
Quote from: North Star on February 05, 2014, 11:37:48 AM
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?
Quote from: knight66 on February 05, 2014, 11:03:31 AM
I wonder if you wilfully misunderstood me?
I was adding on to your post to disagree with somebody else. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Sammy on February 05, 2014, 11:43:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Sammy on February 05, 2014, 11:41:12 AM
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.
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 01:59:02 PM
I have a problem with this. Unapologetically cut from wikipedia (but cited from various dictionaries), ...
Now this is something I can buy into.
+1.
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 01:59:02 PM
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
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 01:59:02 PM
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.
But a guarantee of the equal right of a fair trial is not the same as a guarantee of equal access to Alan Dershowitz. And if celebrities, attractive people, etc. are less likely to be convicted, how do we correct for that? Put them in a cardboard box when they testify?
Quote from: Brian on February 05, 2014, 03:02:24 PM
But a guarantee of the equal right of a fair trial is not the same as a guarantee of equal access to Alan Dershowitz. And if celebrities, attractive people, etc. are less likely to be convicted, how do we correct for that? Put them in a cardboard box when they testify?
Hey I'm the first to say that I don't have the answer - in fact I already said that earlier, but that doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about it. But at the moment there seems to be some disagreement about the goal!
Quote from: Sef on February 05, 2014, 03:49:01 PM
Hey I'm the first to say that I don't have the answer - in fact I already said that earlier, but that doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about it. But at the moment there seems to be some disagreement about the goal!
Some US states are attempting public defender reform to ensure that the poorest get good legal coverage. I can't remember where I read the story, but I believe one state is trying Democrat-style reforms - trying to lure better lawyers into being public defenders, creating higher training standards, etc. - and another state, maybe Texas, is trying Republican-style reforms - handing out "public defense vouchers" where you pick any lawyer you want and the state will pay for it. Contrary to popular belief, most public defenders are pretty dedicated and believe in the goodness of their cause. It's much like being a teacher in America: society expects the worst of them, and also pays them very poorly so that anyone with real ambition or talent can get hired elsewhere.
Quote from: Sammy on February 05, 2014, 10:44:45 AM
3. Capitalism is the best system we have. It surely beats socialism, communism, dictatorships and royalty.
Yes, it is working perfectly for the highest 1% earners in America.
There will undoubtedly be a revolution in the USA at some point in time, likely within the next 5 to 10 years, max. Continuous shrinking of the middle class, more outsourcing of American jobs to other countries, bank bailouts that are sure to occur again. At some point, the masses will say enough is enough and revolt.
Doesn't seem to matter who is in power, the Republicans or Democrats, because the fact is neither of them are 'in power'. Wall Street big banks and the richest CEO's of corporations are the one who pull all the strings.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 05, 2014, 04:09:17 PMThere will undoubtedly be a revolution in the USA at some point in time, likely within the next 5 to 10 years, max.
I am willing to place a wager on this one. $200, or more if you'd like, that there will not be a revolution in your timeframe. What do you say?
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 05, 2014, 04:09:17 PM
Yes, it is working perfectly for the highest 1% earners in America.
I'm a bigtime capitalist, and I disapprove of the current income equality gap. But there's no inherent contradiction in that. There are some simple policy fixes which could help a great deal, and there are also some simple moral precepts which, if applied by various people, could help too. Capitalism does not entail greed, any more than Communism did, but greedy people are a constant fact of life that we have to do our best to counteract whether we're capitalist or not.
Quote from: Todd on February 05, 2014, 05:54:20 PM
I am willing to place a wager on this one. $200, or more if you'd like, that there will not be a revolution in your timeframe. What do you say?
I'm in, Todd. Although, I'd prefer instead of $200 cash, something of a more stable guarantee (for you or I). $200 worth of government backed derivative swaps.
Quote from: Brian on February 05, 2014, 06:13:07 PM
I'm a bigtime capitalist, and I disapprove of the current income equality gap.
I am happy to hear this Brian.
Do you believe this income equality gap will ever be resolved by the USA government or by the powerful and rich in America, or continue to widen? I believe that it can, but that change won't come from government or the wealthy minority.
I think the continuing accumulation of more wealth among fewer people is an unavoidable consequence of hvis system. A latter pie to share will mean we are all better off, but if the pie stops growing ....
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 06, 2014, 03:21:09 AMI'm in, Todd. Although, I'd prefer instead of $200 cash, something of a more stable guarantee (for you or I). $200 worth of government backed derivative swaps.
If you want a widely accepted store of value in a world with the US in revolution, it would have to be $200 in gold, at today's prices.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 06, 2014, 03:28:20 AMI believe that it can, but that change won't come from government or the wealthy minority.
Ultimately, it did in the Progressive Era and the 1930s, and there was more deep poverty and widespread discontent and direct action (ie, political violence) during those periods than there is now or has been for the past half decade, so I see no reason why it would be different in the future. The Occupy "movement" was a feeble assortment of aimless people lazily protesting all manner of things, and even that fizzled. While there is a wide income gap, the absolute level of material well-being of even poor Americans is so comparatively high to what it was in pre-war America that it strikes me as hard to envision widespread violence or unrest, especially as the economy (very slowly) improves. And while I certainly do not advocate policies that would lead to what some commentators call Neo-feudalism, it is worth pointing out that the extreme income and wealth disparities of feudalism lasted for centuries. With a fat and happy-ish population enamored of their electronic gizmos and drugged up on the latest meds, it might be possible to see that again.
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2014, 05:38:35 AM
While there is a wide income gap, the absolute level of material well-being of even poor Americans is so comparatively high to what it was in pre-war America that it strikes me as hard to envision widespread violence or unrest, especially as the economy (very slowly) improves.
Bingo. And this is a point that is so often lost in these discussions.
Yes, the widening wealth gap
is a problem that we can't ignore, but the rich–poor gap is hardly the only indicator of a country's economic health, and it's surely not the most important one. When considering things on a global scale, the living standard of a nation's poor is crucial, and on that count the US has been doing pretty well for a while (albeit could and should do better). I'd put the potential for class mobility up there, too, and on that count the US has some serious problems.
But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. All "first-world" countries have mixed economies, some of which lean a little closer toward socialism, and some of which lean a little closer toward capitalism. Finding the right balance is tricky, because the sane among us value both individual liberty and social welfare, which are so often competing interests. If we've learned anything from history, we'll ignore the extreme ideologues on either side and instead keep searching for that right balance.
I'm not sure what the right answer is for this issue of public defenders, but paying them well in order to (continue to) attract skilled and dedicated attorneys is probably part of it. In any case, I don't think the solution to inequality should necessarily be to force everyone who has it better to have it just as bad as the least fortunate among us. It depends on the issue, but when it comes to something as fundamental to individual liberty as trying to clear one's name when wrongly accused of a crime, I find the thought of disallowing the use of one's own resources for the purpose rather repugnant.
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2014, 05:38:35 AM
If you want a widely accepted store of value in a world with the US in revolution, it would have to be $200 in gold, at today's prices.
Bitcoin!
(But more seriously, strictly in the world of currency, perhaps the Swiss franc or a Scandinavian denomination? I'm not altogether certain.)
Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2014, 11:35:18 AMBut more seriously, strictly in the world of currency, perhaps the Swiss franc or a Scandinavian denomination? I'm not altogether certain.
The US dollar is still the primary global reserve currency, and its financial markets are the largest and most liquid in the world. A real revolution in the United States would cause financial panic around the world, and currencies pegged to the US dollar would collapse, taking the affected countries' economies with them. Some countries' currencies might go up in the short term, but with US treasuries massively devalued or valueless, which would most likely be the case during a revolution, trillions of dollars in financial transactions would be at risk and trillions of dollars in assets would be very difficult or impossible to price, so financial markets the world over would either stop functioning altogether, or at least be seriously hobbled for a good while, and global trade would be seriously reduced. Those are the types of conditions that may lead to more intense economic nationalism in other regions, which could lead to war between various countries other than the US. And what if whatever revolutionary leaders - that is, dictator or dictators - who would emerge decide to be like Napoleon and try to take down the current Ancien Régime the world over? It is important to consider that as popular as it is to compare the United States to Rome, or other ancient empires, the US has actually achieved a degree of
global hegemony militarily, politically, and economically that is unprecedented in history, even in its current relatively diminished state (as compared to, say, the 1950s). Rome's collapse didn't mean a whole lot to ancient China, for instance. If the US collapsed today, it most certainly would. A US revolution would not be the end of the world, but it would cause not a little inconvenience.
But of course, the conditions are not ripe for revolution in the US. Disaffection with this or that policy, or the unfairness of income distribution, or what not, are not quite the same as the acute deprivations and inequalities that existed in 18th Century France or 20th Century Russia. A variety of conditions would have to deteriorate rather markedly, and quickly, starting with the economy as a whole, before one could make bold claims about an impending revolution. Perhaps those who favor or predict revolution are hoping for a modern version on 1688 or 1776.