Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree with you. if other countries can refuse to give up people to stand trial here because of a possible death sentence. then I do not have a problem with the USA not giving in to the judicial system of Italy.
Actually, Roman Polanski decided to pass on a trial and admitted his guilt by pleading guilty. All that was left was for the Judge to sentence him. He decided to flee the country instead being sentenced.
I disagree with you. if other countries can refuse to give up people to stand trial here because of a possible death sentence. then I do not have a problem with the USA not giving in to the judicial system of Italy.
Other countries do not prevent extradition in relation to capital punishment, they are extradited to the US where they serve life sentences instead of being executed, however they are still extradited.
As for the Law, it's international law such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that prevents extradition to countries in relation to execution.
So if the US takes that stance there will be no extradition to or from any of the 47 ECHR Countries, who have a combined population of 820 million and no extradition with a host of other countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico and numerous others. Which will leave the US with only a handful of countries it can request extradition from, given that many countries don't have or won't extradite to the US, such as much of the Middle East, Russia, China and many parts of Asia.
What a sophisticated and detailed analysis of the facts..............
Facts? lol
Seems like Teddy is just swept up in the sensationalism and emotion of the trial, the media has created a polarizing situation and you know 88, that when you get "all emotional" its hard to think about facts. Besides, why would we need facts???
I am not at all surprised by this. The evidence collection and crime scene investigation was so botched it was inconceivable how any of the DNA evidence was admitted into court. The DNA lab that performed the testing was also out of compliance and had poor standards.
It seems that the double jeopardy clause is a potential loophole that they could use to either postpone the extradition or stop it. Its not a guarantee since Italy doesnt view/honor double jeopardy like the US.
It seems that the double jeopardy clause is a potential loophole that they could use to either postpone the extradition or stop it. Its not a guarantee since Italy doesnt view/honor double jeopardy like the US.
Double jeopardy does not apply.
First, under Italian law because the various trials/appeals were all part of a continuous process. Unlike in the USA, Italian law allows prosecutors to appeal an acquittal. Thus, Knox's acquittal was not a 'final' judgement but was subject to appeal. Second, there is no double jeopardy under US law because Knox has never been tried in the USA.
Does anyone want to live in a country that does NOT have extradition agreements with other countries? Basically a "hey, come here to avoid criminal prosecution"...no thanks
I think Amanda, her bo, and that rudy loser were involved...rudy killed meridith and the other 2 helped or stood by and let it happen...we will never know they truth but I believe they were all in that house at the time, rudy killed her, and Amanda and whatshisface helped clean up
I also however don't believe Italian prosecutor proved it...I have tons of reasonable doubt...he is corrupt and the investigation was a joke...
Moot point now, but, for information purposes, there would have been no double jeopardy issue in terms of extraditing Knox if the Italian Supreme Court affirmed her conviction. As is mentioned in the OP, Knox's being found "innocent" or "not guilty" occurred on appeal (she was originally found guilty, which matters here) and did not represent a final judgment. We see similar things in the US where, after a party is found guilty at the trial level, their conviction is overturned in the intermediate appeals court, only to be reinstated by the supreme court. Double jeopardy would only be a problem if, after being found "not guilty" as an initial matter, the courts/prosecution lobbied for and secured a conviction on the same charges.
Now, there would have been litigation on the matter to be sure, but it would have been destined to fail. Still, things would ultimately come down to whether there was the political will for the State Department to push for the extradition if necessary. And, given the public mood in this country regarding the Knox case, I question whether the State Department would have pushed for extradition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
