amanda knox vs OJ simpson

imported_guy

so i really want to discuss this a little bit

well in my mind OJ simpson did commit double murder, but was let off the hook based on poor evidence

and in my mind amanda knox probably didnt really kill merdith kercher but was jailed based on poor evidence pinning the murder on her

these are probably prime cases where justice hasnt REALLY been served, i mean in my mind OJ was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and there is some doubt in my mind that amanda was actully guilty (she probably is guilty of witholding information/giving false information etc etc but i dont think that she actully killed meridith kercher)

so in your mind which justice system is better than the other? "innocent until proven guilty" vs "guilty until proven innocent" i actully prefer the 2nd one, its hard to prove someone is guilty, but at the same time, you can be found guilty if your in the wrong place at the wrong time

r14

When you say Knox v OJ are you trying to contrast the common law system with the civil law system. Just so you know the civil law system (like Italy's) does not employ a presumption of guilt until innocence is prove. It just looks that way because there is no right to bail in the civil law so a person can be in prison, often for years, before they are ever found guilty.

This is exactly what happened in the Knox case. She was remanded in prison during the investigation and the trial. Nevertheless she was still presumed innocent throughout. Whatever you think about this procedure Knox was still presumed innocent when she was brought to trial and her guilt had to be proved by the prosecution rather than disproved by her.

As for preferring a presumption of guilt I am definitely against it. Better one guilty man walks free etc. You cannot have confidence in a justice system which is prepared to sacrifice certainty in favour of an easy conviction.

enry

Would it be easier to see her as being guilty if she was less attractive? Remember enough circumstantial evidence can often be as good as physical evidence.

sparkling sea

Can anyone tell me how the 2 judges and 6 lay persons jury works, its not something I can get my head round - how would the judges opinion not have undue influence on the lay people.

With regard to the DNA - does can anyone tell me how this expert testimony is put forward. Does it have to be at a level an ordinary person would understand. Do the judges and barristers have to have a level of training to understand this evidence as the do in the US.

I have a bit of a worry that the amount of comples evidence put forward in an 11 month trial and the judges could allow for jury nullification.

imported_guy

i actully thought in amanda knox's case that there would be a hung jury like i was pretty much a 100% sure, and then there would be a re-trial and they both would get done for something other than murder

r14

sparkling sea wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how the 2 judges and 6 lay persons jury works, its not something I can get my head round - how would the judges opinion not have undue influence on the lay people.

That's the civil law system. In France it's 3 judges and 9 lay people. It's different but not necessarily worse.

I'm sure there would be influence on the lay people. You'd be a fool not to take account of the views of judges who have day to day experience of the legal system and expertise in deciding the guilt or innocence of a person.

I accept that it might be a bit of a fiction to say that the judges are just ordinary members of the jury but I sometimes think we'd be better if we had a similar system. It certainly might remedy some defects in the jury system like the Scottish "not proven" verdict or jury nullification whereby someone might shoot a fleeing intruder in the back and then get off on the basis of self defence (no prizes for guessing the case I'm thinking of )

kmick

The difference between the two was for OJ all the forensic evidence was there but they did a bad sales job. Amanda Knox had no evidence against her at all but the Sales job was good.

imported_guy

kmick wrote: »

The difference between the two was for OJ all the forensic evidence was there but they did a bad sales job. Amanda Knox had no evidence against her at all but the Sales job was good.

thats actully what it probably comes down to in the end, ive read about the rodney king case as well quite similiar to these imo, in terms of finding someone guilty of a crime

r14

imported_guy wrote: »

thats actully what it probably comes down to in the end, ive read about the rodney king case as well quite similiar to these imo, in terms of finding someone guilty of a crime

Can I just ask why you're so sure she's innocent? Seems to me cases of the legal system getting it spectacularly wrong do happen but they are really rare. Why is Knox the exception to the rule?

imported_guy

r14 wrote: »

Can I just ask why you're so sure she's innocent? Seems to me cases of the legal system getting it spectacularly wrong do happen but they are really rare. Why is Knox the exception to the rule?

its actully quite the opposite, i really do think she has something to hide etc, but i dont think she was the one who apparently used the knife etc etc like it has been suggested, she was probably an accessory yeah, i think 26 years was a bit severe (and obviously the murder charge, it should have been manslaughter or something like being an accessory etc) given the evidence, and it never looked like a first degree murder from the start, so i dont even know why the other guy was given 30 years

kmick

r14 wrote: »

Can I just ask why you're so sure she's innocent? Seems to me cases of the legal system getting it spectacularly wrong do happen but they are really rare. Why is Knox the exception to the rule?

She could well be guilty as hell. All we are saying is that there was no real evidence that she was.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904571,00.html

Jamie-b

She could well be guilty as hell. All we are saying is that there was no real evidence that she was

Looking at the evidence (only that which is reported- obviously I don't have the full story) I would lean towards her being guilty. However, if you asked me did I believe she was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt I would have to say no.
The problem here for the jury I think is a choice between acquitting someone that they strongly believe to be guilty or convicting a person where there is a (smallish) chance they are innocent. It would be a very difficult decision to make