Agreed. I'd add that, if your understanding of a country's legal system is based on one case and the (frequently sensationalistic) media coverage thereof, that understanding is always going to be horribly flawed, no matter which country we're talking about.
No argument from me there. This seems to be a botched case, and it sounds like this is not terribly infrequent in Italy, but that hardly makes America's system automatically better. I almost want to point out that we are pretty fair when it comes to "innocent until proven guilty", but obviously, that doesn't always apply in America either.
There is no double jeopardy arguement here really. If the ISC throws out the appeal then she is back to 'guilty' on the first jeopardy. If you are found to be innocent on appeal, and the appeal is overturned you are in fact back to guilty.
Not in the US, though. The government can't appeal a finding of not-guilty, due to double jeopardy, AFAIK. Foreign laws can't override Constitutional protections. In the unlikely case that Italy wanted to extradite her, her attorneys could point to the finding of innocence in this last trial and invoke the double jeopardy rule. If the US government only gets one bite at the apple when it comes to seeking a conviction, I can't see US courts giving foreign governments more latitude.
it's not due to double jeopardy really
our country just does not allow appeals of not guilty verdicts by the State. the State doesn't have appeal rights like the defendant does.
our country just does not allow appeals of not guilty verdicts by the State. the State doesn't have appeal rights like the defendant does.
Because appealing a not-guilty verdict violates the 5th Amendment. The Amendment that grants protections against Double Jeopardy. Because trying someone again on appeal its jeopardizing them twice.
There are exceptions, but that is like, the exact definition of "double jeopardy" that the 5th Amendment codifies.
In Italy they say that the appeal is not a new trial and only continues the trial (which if you're a legal theorist should violate the idea that juries are fact finders/determiners) even though they have the law on the books saying no double jeopardy.
edit: that being said, the 5th Amendment might be seen as a guide in extradition, but it would not hold legal sway in this matter(imo). This is because the 5th prevents the same jurisdiction in the U.S. from trying a criminal case twice but does not actually prevent the U.S. from allowing Italy to try someone twice.
our country just does not allow appeals of not guilty verdicts by the State. the State doesn't have appeal rights like the defendant does.
Because appealing a not-guilty verdict violates the 5th Amendment. The Amendment that grants protections against Double Jeopardy. Because trying someone again on appeal its jeopardizing them twice.
There are exceptions, but that is like, the exact definition of "double jeopardy" that the 5th Amendment codifies.
In Italy they say that the appeal is not a new trial and only continues the trial (which if you're a legal theorist should violate the idea that juries are fact finders/determiners) even though they have the law on the books saying no double jeopardy.
edit: that being said, the 5th Amendment might be seen as a guide in extradition, but it would not hold legal sway in this matter(imo). This is because the 5th prevents the same jurisdiction in the U.S. from trying a criminal case twice but does not actually prevent the U.S. from allowing Italy to try someone twice.
No, I think you are misinterpreting double jeopardy. It is sort of a fine line though.
Defendants can appeal their cases on procedural grounds, saying that the trial judge made a decision that was reversible error, or that the law requires a new trial for some reason. Then they get a new trial if the appeal is granted. They don't get acquitted - the appeals court does not determine guilt. What they do in Italy is different, and very weird.
The State can't ask for a new trial after a not guilty verdict. The State doesn't have appeal rights after losing a trial. (This is different in Canada, for example, I think).
Double jeopardy would apply if, for example, someone was acquitted and the State filed new charges for crimes arising out of the same acts for which the person was already tried. No go.
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
I've just read the "Monster of Florence" book mentioned earlier in the thread and found in fascinating. Does anyone have anymore recommendations for books detailing inept police investigations? I get the feeling this is an area of literature with many interesting stories to tell.
No, I think you are misinterpreting double jeopardy. It is sort of a fine line though.
Defendants can appeal their cases on procedural grounds, saying that the trial judge made a decision that was reversible error, or that the law requires a new trial for some reason. Then they get a new trial if the appeal is granted. They don't get acquitted - the appeals court does not determine guilt. What they do in Italy is different, and very weird.
The State can't ask for a new trial after a not guilty verdict. The State doesn't have appeal rights after losing a trial. (This is different in Canada, for example, I think).
Double jeopardy would apply if, for example, someone was acquitted and the State filed new charges for crimes arising out of the same acts for which the person was already tried. No go.
Pretty sure that the reason the State can't appeal is because of Double Jeopardy. Because appealing is the state saying "hey, can we try again?". And the answer is "No you cannot try again, we have a Constitutional Amendment about it".
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
As a quick sideline, would the events of the film Double Jeopardy be okay in the US. Just curious, I don't think we have such a law here.
As a quick sideline, would the events of the film Double Jeopardy be okay in the US. Just curious, I don't think we have such a law here.
I think the central premise - "I can kill this guy because I've already been convicted of doing so" - is faulty, because that was technically a different crime she was convicted of.
When will the Georgia Bar realize she's a disgrace to the profession?0
No but see, she has secret information that you just don't have. She knows what REALLY happened.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
As a quick sideline, would the events of the film Double Jeopardy be okay in the US. Just curious, I don't think we have such a law here.
No, it wouldn't be. It'd be like trying to argue double-jeopardy after robbing the same gas station twice. Two separate crimes, committed at two separate times.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
What has Nancy Grace done that's so bad? Serious question, I barely know anything about her.
Seriously, if Nancy Grace has an opinion on a legal proceeding chances are the right answer is the exact opposite.
Also just beyond the "controversies" section of that wikipedia article (which talks about her show), she was accused of prosecutorial misconduct several times when she was a prosecutor.
edit: that being said, the 5th Amendment might be seen as a guide in extradition, but it would not hold legal sway in this matter(imo). This is because the 5th prevents the same jurisdiction in the U.S. from trying a criminal case twice but does not actually prevent the U.S. from allowing Italy to try someone twice.
Following that argument, Constitutional rights are meaningless in an extradition case. If the courts can allow you to be extradited to be tried in a way that violates your 5th Amendment rights, then couldn't they also allow you to be extradited to stand trial in ways that would violate other Constiutional rights?
For example, if another country was seeking to extradite an American to stand trial for hate speech in France, under your reasoning the American defendant couldn't object to extradition on the grounds that the trial would violate his 1st Amendment rights. (I'm thinking of the recent Vincent Galliano case. If Galliano had been an American citizen and had fled to the US after his anti-semitic tirade, I would consider it a violation of his 1st Amendment rights if he had been extradited back to France to stand trial).
If you are willing to judge the Italian system based on this one case, you should also be willing to judge the American system based on a small number of cases. You can't seriously think that the American system comes out ahead in that comparison. I know which country I'd rather be tried in and it sure isn't America.
If you'd rather be tried in Italy versus the US, I have to say that you are sadly ignorant of the legal systems in both countries.
It's pretty well agreed by legal experts all over the world that the US has some of the best protections for the accused of any legal system. There are maybe a handful of other legal systems that provide the equivalent of the protection against double jeapordy, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, right to avoid self incrimination, right to a jury trial etc.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Nancy Grace is the literal personification of Guilty Before Innocent.
Yeah, the awesome thing about her is how perfectly she exemplifies everything that is wrong with our legal system and our media in one horrific, vest wearing package.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
If you'd rather be tried in Italy versus the US, I have to say that you are sadly ignorant of the legal systems in both countries.
Truly a valuable contribution to this discussion.
It's pretty well agreed by legal experts all over the world that the US has some of the best protections for the accused of any legal system. There are maybe a handful of other legal systems that provide the equivalent of the protection against double jeapordy, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, right to avoid self incrimination, right to a jury trial etc.
I'm pretty sure that just about every civilized country has everything on your list, with the exception of the right to a jury trial.
Oh, and the first post you quoted wasn't actually from me.
It's pretty well agreed by legal experts all over the world that the US has some of the best protections for the accused of any legal system. There are maybe a handful of other legal systems that provide the equivalent of the protection against double jeapordy, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, right to avoid self incrimination, right to a jury trial etc.
I'm pretty sure that just about every civilized country has everything on your list, with the exception of the right to a jury trial.
Not really, no. Certainly, not to the level that exists in the US. As mentioned upthread, silence can be used to draw negative inferences in some systems. In France, the judge in criminal trials is not just a neutral arbiter, but can actively be involved in interrogating witnesses.
The American system is heavily weighted in favor of the defendant's rights.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Judging a legal system solely on the protections a defendant theoretically enjoys seems awfully silly, especially considering the outcomes the American legal system produces.
Also, I'd like you to actually name a civilized country with a legal system that doesn't have basic stuff like the right to avoid self-incrimination, right to counsel, presumption of innocence etc. Not just one where one of these things is maybe slightly more limited than in the US.
Judging a legal system solely on the protections a defendant theoretically enjoys seems awfully silly, especially considering the outcomes the American legal system produces.
Also, I'd like you to actually name a civilized country with a legal system that doesn't have basic stuff like the right to avoid self-incrimination, right to counsel, presumption of innocence etc. Not just one where one of these things is maybe slightly more limited than in the US.
You're reading what he wrote incorrectly, he didn't say that there were tons of civilized countries that don't have these protections at all.
He said there are civilized countries that don't provide the equivalent protection the US does.
It's pretty well agreed by legal experts all over the world that the US has some of the best protections for the accused of any legal system. There are maybe a handful of other legal systems that provide the equivalent of the protection against double jeapordy, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, right to avoid self incrimination, right to a jury trial etc.
The World Justice Project doesn't rate the US the highest (pdf), in it's Rule of Law Index, which is not to denigrate the US, as it still scores highly in general (averaging 16th out of 66 countries). Could you direct me to a source for this global consensus of legal experts you mention, please?
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
Also, I'd like you to actually name a civilized country with a legal system that doesn't have basic stuff like the right to avoid self-incrimination, right to counsel, presumption of innocence etc.
Well, as far as I know Japan has a pretty bad legal system for a civilized country.
It's pretty well agreed by legal experts all over the world that the US has some of the best protections for the accused of any legal system. There are maybe a handful of other legal systems that provide the equivalent of the protection against double jeapordy, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, right to avoid self incrimination, right to a jury trial etc.
The World Justice Project doesn't rate the US the highest (pdf), in it's Rule of Law Index, which is not to denigrate the US, as it still scores highly in general (averaging 16th out of 66 countries). Could you direct me to a source for this global consensus of legal experts you mention, please?
I'm not sure what that source has to do with a discussion about legal protections given to criminal defendants.
Judging a legal system solely on the protections a defendant theoretically enjoys seems awfully silly, especially considering the outcomes the American legal system produces.
Also, I'd like you to actually name a civilized country with a legal system that doesn't have basic stuff like the right to avoid self-incrimination, right to counsel, presumption of innocence etc. Not just one where one of these things is maybe slightly more limited than in the US.
What horrible outcomes does the American legal system produce?
And I'm not arguing that other countries don't grant protections to criminal defendants. I'm just not aware of any country that grants more protections than the US.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It's pretty well agreed by legal experts all over the world that the US has some of the best protections for the accused of any legal system. There are maybe a handful of other legal systems that provide the equivalent of the protection against double jeapordy, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, right to avoid self incrimination, right to a jury trial etc.
The World Justice Project doesn't rate the US the highest (pdf), in it's Rule of Law Index, which is not to denigrate the US, as it still scores highly in general (averaging 16th out of 66 countries). Could you direct me to a source for this global consensus of legal experts you mention, please?
I'm not sure what that source has to do with a discussion about legal protections given to criminal defendants.
The charts have a measure for "Due process of law".
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
I'm fairly sure that the topic of this thread is not, 'Country X's legal systems sucks balls, Country Y's is awesome!' Italy and the US can both have fucked up occurrences in their legal processes, but right now there's a reason why we're focusing on Italy's.
And I'm not arguing that other countries don't grant protections to criminal defendants. I'm just not aware of any country that grants more protections than the US.
My apologies, apparently I misread your earlier post. I can't really comment on the precise extent of the protections a defendant enjoys in the US as opposed to other countries as I'm not that familiar with the various legal systems of the world. I'm not aware of any additional protections a defendant would have in the US as opposed to, let's say Germany, Sweden or Norway, though.
EDIT: The World Justice Project apparently gives Italy a better score for "Due process of law" than the US. No idea how credible that organization is, though.
Who was that girl who a lot (most?) people think is guilty that was deemed innocent like a few months ago? Allegedly killed her kid or something.
Just bringing it up to show just how chaotic these things can be.
Casey Anthony. Who probably owes a lot to the fact that prosecutors went for a murder conviction without a body and then proceeded to paint a picture that resembled a manslaughter/accidental scenario rather then overt malice. I don't think jurors had the option to convict on a lesser charge.
Also now that I said Casey Anthony, Nancy Grace appeared behind me.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
So what's the going consensus on that? She did it, but accidentally or..? It's so hard to keep up with all these theories.
I do recall seeing her a few times on TV and she didn't really seem all that sympathetic.
So what's the going consensus on that? She did it, but accidentally or..? It's so hard to keep up with all these theories.
I do recall seeing her a few times on TV and she didn't really seem all that sympathetic.
She's basically a text book example of the stupid kid having kids (kid being someone say under 25 and not exactly mature). Her kid is basically dead because stupid, selfish people don't magically mature once they have kids.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
So what's the going consensus on that? She did it, but accidentally or..? It's so hard to keep up with all these theories.
I do recall seeing her a few times on TV and she didn't really seem all that sympathetic.
The consensus is that no one really knows what happened. She claimed it was an accident, the prosecution claimed it was murder, but never came up with a compelling theory as to why she would murder her 2 year-old daughter.
At worst, she came off as a less-than-stellar mom. But it's a far cry from that to murdering your own kid.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Innocent until proven guilty. No one understands that, just what the media implies.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I don't have the numbers handy, but don't a fair amount of people on juries actually pre-decide their verdict based on how the person looks and whatnot? It's why a lot of lawyers actually push on emotions more than actual law.
When I was going to college, I remember several cases where the accused wasn't guilty under the law, but the lawyers felt the jury wouldn't vote not guilty based on how it's written and so went for more of a gut response.
Posts
No argument from me there. This seems to be a botched case, and it sounds like this is not terribly infrequent in Italy, but that hardly makes America's system automatically better. I almost want to point out that we are pretty fair when it comes to "innocent until proven guilty", but obviously, that doesn't always apply in America either.
it's not due to double jeopardy really
our country just does not allow appeals of not guilty verdicts by the State. the State doesn't have appeal rights like the defendant does.
Because appealing a not-guilty verdict violates the 5th Amendment. The Amendment that grants protections against Double Jeopardy. Because trying someone again on appeal its jeopardizing them twice.
There are exceptions, but that is like, the exact definition of "double jeopardy" that the 5th Amendment codifies.
In Italy they say that the appeal is not a new trial and only continues the trial (which if you're a legal theorist should violate the idea that juries are fact finders/determiners) even though they have the law on the books saying no double jeopardy.
edit: that being said, the 5th Amendment might be seen as a guide in extradition, but it would not hold legal sway in this matter(imo). This is because the 5th prevents the same jurisdiction in the U.S. from trying a criminal case twice but does not actually prevent the U.S. from allowing Italy to try someone twice.
No, I think you are misinterpreting double jeopardy. It is sort of a fine line though.
Defendants can appeal their cases on procedural grounds, saying that the trial judge made a decision that was reversible error, or that the law requires a new trial for some reason. Then they get a new trial if the appeal is granted. They don't get acquitted - the appeals court does not determine guilt. What they do in Italy is different, and very weird.
The State can't ask for a new trial after a not guilty verdict. The State doesn't have appeal rights after losing a trial. (This is different in Canada, for example, I think).
Double jeopardy would apply if, for example, someone was acquitted and the State filed new charges for crimes arising out of the same acts for which the person was already tried. No go.
for a book about police investigation in general (in the 90s), I strongly recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide:_A_Year_on_the_Killing_Streets
Pretty sure that the reason the State can't appeal is because of Double Jeopardy. Because appealing is the state saying "hey, can we try again?". And the answer is "No you cannot try again, we have a Constitutional Amendment about it".
I think the central premise - "I can kill this guy because I've already been convicted of doing so" - is faulty, because that was technically a different crime she was convicted of.
I'm not a lawyer however.
When will the Georgia Bar realize she's a disgrace to the profession?
No but see, she has secret information that you just don't have. She knows what REALLY happened.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Also just beyond the "controversies" section of that wikipedia article (which talks about her show), she was accused of prosecutorial misconduct several times when she was a prosecutor.
For example, if another country was seeking to extradite an American to stand trial for hate speech in France, under your reasoning the American defendant couldn't object to extradition on the grounds that the trial would violate his 1st Amendment rights. (I'm thinking of the recent Vincent Galliano case. If Galliano had been an American citizen and had fled to the US after his anti-semitic tirade, I would consider it a violation of his 1st Amendment rights if he had been extradited back to France to stand trial).
If you'd rather be tried in Italy versus the US, I have to say that you are sadly ignorant of the legal systems in both countries.
It's pretty well agreed by legal experts all over the world that the US has some of the best protections for the accused of any legal system. There are maybe a handful of other legal systems that provide the equivalent of the protection against double jeapordy, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, right to avoid self incrimination, right to a jury trial etc.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah, the awesome thing about her is how perfectly she exemplifies everything that is wrong with our legal system and our media in one horrific, vest wearing package.
I'm pretty sure that just about every civilized country has everything on your list, with the exception of the right to a jury trial.
Oh, and the first post you quoted wasn't actually from me.
The American system is heavily weighted in favor of the defendant's rights.
Rigorous Scholarship
Also, I'd like you to actually name a civilized country with a legal system that doesn't have basic stuff like the right to avoid self-incrimination, right to counsel, presumption of innocence etc. Not just one where one of these things is maybe slightly more limited than in the US.
You're reading what he wrote incorrectly, he didn't say that there were tons of civilized countries that don't have these protections at all.
He said there are civilized countries that don't provide the equivalent protection the US does.
The World Justice Project doesn't rate the US the highest (pdf), in it's Rule of Law Index, which is not to denigrate the US, as it still scores highly in general (averaging 16th out of 66 countries). Could you direct me to a source for this global consensus of legal experts you mention, please?
Well, as far as I know Japan has a pretty bad legal system for a civilized country.
What horrible outcomes does the American legal system produce?
And I'm not arguing that other countries don't grant protections to criminal defendants. I'm just not aware of any country that grants more protections than the US.
Rigorous Scholarship
The charts have a measure for "Due process of law".
EDIT: The World Justice Project apparently gives Italy a better score for "Due process of law" than the US. No idea how credible that organization is, though.
Just bringing it up to show just how chaotic these things can be.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Casey Anthony.
Some website was running a poll as to who its readers would rather bang, Racey Casey or Foxy Knoxy.
Rigorous Scholarship
Casey Anthony. Who probably owes a lot to the fact that prosecutors went for a murder conviction without a body and then proceeded to paint a picture that resembled a manslaughter/accidental scenario rather then overt malice. I don't think jurors had the option to convict on a lesser charge.
Also now that I said Casey Anthony, Nancy Grace appeared behind me.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I do recall seeing her a few times on TV and she didn't really seem all that sympathetic.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
She's basically a text book example of the stupid kid having kids (kid being someone say under 25 and not exactly mature). Her kid is basically dead because stupid, selfish people don't magically mature once they have kids.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
At worst, she came off as a less-than-stellar mom. But it's a far cry from that to murdering your own kid.
Rigorous Scholarship
Rigorous Scholarship
When I was going to college, I remember several cases where the accused wasn't guilty under the law, but the lawyers felt the jury wouldn't vote not guilty based on how it's written and so went for more of a gut response.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass