Italy court clears Knox and Sollecito

[space-time]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32096621

[N-OS X-tasy!]

I had a feeling this would be the outcome this time around.

[freeradical]

I initially felt that the Italian justice system should have been given the benefit of the doubt with respect to this case. However, I don't see you can call it justice when it takes so long for this to finally be over.

There's a reason why the 6th amendment says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

I also find it incomprehensible that an appeals court can find someone guilty after they've already been found not guilty. It really boggles the mind.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

freeradical wrote:
I also find it incomprehensible that an appeals court can find someone guilty after they've already been found not guilty. It really boggles the mind.

You have the Founding Fathers and the Constitution to thank for that.

[space-time]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=freeradical]
I also find it incomprehensible that an appeals court can find someone guilty after they've already been found not guilty. It really boggles the mind.

You have the Founding Fathers and the Constitution to thank for that.
in principle I agree with that, but don't forget there are obvious cases where someone was been found "not guilty" where they were obviously guilty. (Think O.J.) Even if they confess to the crime later on, I don't think you can put them on trial again, can you? something about double jeopardy I believe.

[Pam]

About time. The DNA evidence was so bad that this was the only proper verdict.

[DP]

Pam wrote:
About time. The DNA evidence was so bad that this was the only proper verdict.

And the only beneficiaries are the lawyers.

[Numo]

Probably no plans to ever return to Italy, though.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

space-time wrote:
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
[quote=freeradical]
I also find it incomprehensible that an appeals court can find someone guilty after they've already been found not guilty. It really boggles the mind.

You have the Founding Fathers and the Constitution to thank for that.
in principle I agree with that, but don't forget there are obvious cases where someone was been found "not guilty" where they were obviously guilty. (Think O.J.) Even if they confess to the crime later on, I don't think you can put them on trial again, can you? something about double jeopardy I believe.
Yes, "something about double jeopardy" is correct.

While double jeopardy does sometimes result in guilty persons going free, that is a price the Founding Fathers deemed to be acceptable in exchange for the protection double jeopardy affords to those who are truly innocent of a crime.

[RAMd®d]

...but don't forget there are obvious cases where someone was been found "not guilty" where they were obviously guilty.

Your point?

In truth of the matter, how do you know OJ was obviously guilty?

What evidence do you have that wasn't presented in court?

And there lies the rub. Evidence.

There are many, many examples of fools saying "You know he's guilty…" or "You know that's what they'll do first chance…" or whatever their bias and prejudice tells them. Yet they have no actual proof supporting their declaration. God for bid they say "I believe…" instead of "You know…"

There is no foolproof system of justice. There will always be error somewhere. You try not to punish the innocent in pursuit of the guilty.


There's a reason why the 6th amendment says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

Like that's the norm for us.

Lawyers are the big reason that some people wait for years before their case even goes to trial. That's generally because the defendants are in no hurry for their "day in court". I find it incomprehensible that these clowns often serve on juries. That's a scary flaw in the justice system.


I also find it incomprehensible that an appeals court can find someone guilty after they've already been found not guilty. It really boggles the mind.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle as finding some innocent after they've already been convicted.

For the record, though I don't know it for a fact, I believe OJ committed double homicide. But I couldn't vote guilty on first-degree bases on the evidence presented.

Now considering the stuff overlooked and a charge of second-degree, that's a different story.