Jokes/Interweb Things Thread, Amanda Knox Free in Fun Stuff; As far as every report that has been given by the media, this was a retrial. It isn't a 'reappeal' ...
31st January 2014, 09:19 AM #16
As far as every report that has been given by the media, this was a retrial. It isn't a 'reappeal' as there isn't such a thing. It is a completely new process, starting from the beginning in a different jurisdiction (as the original jurisdiction was determined to be useless).
Which is why the US extradition treaty specifies that someone won't be extradited if they've been acquitted. Otherwise, what's to stop there being another appeal, and another judge scrapping it and starting it all over again.
31st January 2014, 09:25 AM #17
Interesting, so the original aquittal was overturned last year and it was a re-trial (possible a re-appeal).
Either way so far she is guilty once, then aquiited (illegally, hence it got quashed) then guilty again. Currenlty she stands as guilty twice (aquited nil), until her next appeal of course.
In relaity the US will never return her because extradiction agreements with the US aren't worth the paper they are written on, totally one way. So if she is guilty, she will never get punished.
31st January 2014, 09:28 AM #18
From what I have read, legal experts are saying that doesn't matter. Extraditions requests are based on the requesting nations laws, US laws would have no relevance.
Originally Posted by localzuk
31st January 2014, 09:54 AM #19
The request may be made, but the US is entirely restricted by its own laws and the extradition treaty signed when deciding on the response to that request. So, US law would be entirely relevant.
Originally Posted by sparkeh
Just like with the UK - if someone lodges a request for extradition of someone from the UK for a crime that isn't a crime over here, the request would be denied, as it wouldn't be within UK law.
I suspect Italy may not even try, as this judge hasn't made any indication of a desire to get her back and lock her up, instead going entirely the opposite way and saying she's "justifiably abroad".
31st January 2014, 10:01 AM #20
Well your view is contrary to people with extensive legal training.
Originally Posted by localzuk
Quote from Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington DC
But Mr Vladeck thinks the US protection against being tried twice for the same crime - known as double jeopardy - doesn't apply in this case. "There's nothing in the treaty that requires Italy to uphold the US legal system."
from BBC News - Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of Kercher Italy murder
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”.
from What next for Amanda Knox? - Telegraph
31st January 2014, 10:04 AM #21
Thing is, the UK who are the US closest ally, struggle to get people extradited despite overwhelming evidence.
31st January 2014, 10:15 AM #22
Huh? The US government have to implement their own laws when it comes to their own citizens, treaties or extraditions or not! So, US law always applies to people in the USA. If an extradition, regardless of any treaty signed, would be counter to US law (and ultimately the constitution) then it cannot be implemented.
I'm really not sure how that professor came to that conclusion, as 'double jeopardy' law is part of the constitution, which cannot be overridden by any treaties signed. The 5th amendment of the constitution does not mention "the US legal system", it is as simple as:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Which isn't restricted to US legal systems or foreign legal systems. The case here has a person being found guilty, acquitted, and then retried for the same crime and found guilty again!
We're all just speculating though, so only time will tell what will happen. I just don't think the USA will agree to extradite her - it'd be a publicity nightmare for the president that allowed it, as she is very heavily supported by the American public.
31st January 2014, 10:26 AM #23
I guess they came to those conclusion after years of studying international law and being experts in their field.
But yes we are speculating and I agree that if it came to it they wouldn't send her. The US is very good at creative interpretation when it comes to extradition treaties
31st January 2014, 10:29 AM #24
One of the things to remember with the legal system is that academic study of law ends up being very different to implementation by lawyers - as lawyers are very good at, as you say 'creative interpretation'. I spent 2 years studying public order law, but when a friend of mine was pulled up in court for a public order offence? It was useless knowledge, as the police lied about him and the prosecution fudged things. The actual law was basically ignored by the court in favour of what was basically a lie.
By pantscat in forum Classified Adverts
Last Post: 15th April 2011, 03:14 PM
By jimothy in forum Classified Adverts
Last Post: 12th April 2011, 04:39 PM
By Joey in forum Classified Adverts
Last Post: 19th March 2011, 12:55 AM
By Diello in forum Coding
Last Post: 22nd June 2005, 11:05 AM
By ninjabeaver in forum Downloads
Last Post: 16th June 2005, 01:11 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)