Amanda Knox, justice and when civilisations collide

A hypersensitive American soul who for some reason goes by the name of CD-Host sees political impulses at play in my views on US justice.

For those who missed what was a comment posted to a rather old article at Salut!, it arose from a piece I wrote on the outcome of the trial of Amanda Knox, and others, fore the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy.

Most people will know that in the past few days, Knox has won the right to have a review of the scientific evidence on which, in part, she was convicted. If it shows her to be innocent, or for there to be reasonable doubt about her guilt, I would wish her to be freed forthwith.

But the innocence or guilt of this young woman was not the main issue I sought to address in the original posting, which can be seen by clicking here.

I wished to caution against the easy but flawed practice of reaching absolute conclusions about this or that court case based on what has been published by the media. And this was how I ended my piece:

The caution mentioned in my headline - Amanda Knox: caution and consolation - is the sort I urge people to exercise when considering the way this trial has ended. The consolation, for Amanda Knox, is that she was tried and convicted in the relatively civilised environment of a European justice system.

Such are the infantile sentencing policies adopted by American courts that supposing she had stood trial in her native country, and assuming further that the case was not in a state with capital punishment as a likely or available option, she would have faced a prison sentence measured in multiples of life expectancy.

At this late stage, CD-Host has entered the fray, commenting on what I have just reproduced:

"The last 2 paragraphs of your story are total BS. Amanda Knox would have been found not guilty in the American system. Some evidence that she was involved somehow doesn't come close to the burdon of proof required in the USA. The prosecution would have had to prove specific murderous acts. If they speculate that Amanda Knox held Ketchner down during the rape they would have had to prove that and prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as the sentence. Motive would play a role here. Most likely even if the evidence had been overwhelming which is was not, with no clear motive and no evidence of premeditation she would have been convicted of manslaughter not murder. And even if she was convicted of murder she is an excellent rehabilitation candidate and would likely have done about 10 years. But yes the US does have a death penalty. We don't pretend that taking away most of persons productive life is no big deal. We have the moral courage that if we are going to end someone's life to really do it."

My reply:

"Since neither Cd Host nor I is ever likely to act as judge or juror in the case of Amanda Knox, his/her opinion is just that: an opinion (as, of coure, is mine). And if the US penal system is really as enlightened as suggested, perhaps we can look forward to a follow up posting on the merits of the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy. This should deal at least in passing with some of the lunacy the policy has inspired in specific examples."

And his/her response:

"Well sure. But I'm not likely to hold most political offices which doesn't mean I don't have political opinions. And your assault on the US system was fundamentally political not fact based. And I'm defending everything about the US system. I'm charging that the italian system failed in a specific case and that in this case the US system would have done much much better when that is total nonsense. What happened in Italy is exactly what the US system was designed to prevent. As for the 3 strikes law. That's not relevant to Amanda who would be on her 1st strike at worst. If I believed that Amanda Knox did what the Italians claimed she did I wouldn't have a problem with her dying for it. And I think if they intended to hang her, rather than just take her life away in a prison the disgusting lack of evidence would be a big deal. And the attitude wouldn't be yours of who gives a damn because she's only going to lose her 20's 30's and 40's to cover up for a lying prosecutor. As for 3 strikes specifically, I don't have a huge problem with the system used as intended, i.e. no multiple strikes without an intervening prison term. In CA they cheat voter intent. I also don't think this should apply to parole violations. But if you exclude those two cases, yeah I favor 3 strikes. In fact I favor the old 40s version where the 3rd strike was hanging. 3 major felonies are and should be a big deal."

For CD-Host's information, I have no "political" axe to grind with the US justice and penal systems. I am simply against what I feel to be wrong, whether it occurs in America or anywhere else.

I deplore sentences passed by American judges if they run into three figures. If you want someone to die in jail, just pass a life sentence without possibility of parole. I may still disagree, since in very few cases would I go that far, but I could not then label the practice "infantile", which is what it is.

And I deplore any action to dispatch to the US those individuals - the English computer hacker and the Wikileaks man, even Roman Polanski, spring to mind - who would face several times the sentences they could expect in European jurisdictions.

Cd-Host defends three-strikes-and-you're-out. Does that mean it is OK to incarcerate for ever a misfit who steals a slice of pizza, having already been convicted of two similar crimes perhaps involving whole pizzas? Since it seems to happen, give or take some of the detail, that is is a reasonable test of the policy. And is it also OK to convict people of murder, and execute them, when their level of criminal responsibility is clearly diminished by mental health factors? That also appears to happens, though like CD-Host I am going to a large extent on what I have read (that's a product of human nature, as I have readily acknowledged).

When these things happen, though, they reflect what I have called tabloid justice. And they happen here too.

The Times reports today that a man has been released from a life sentence for murdering his wife ONLY on condition that he no longer protests his innocence*.

I find this outrageous. What may well be a false declaration or acceptance of guilt should never be a test of whether a prisoner's debt to society has been paid.

I have written about other cases where judges have passed what I consider to be indefensible sentences, absurdly lenient or absurdly harsh.

Nothing political in that. Just a sense of fair play. I leave others to judge on whether I get it right some of the time, all of the time or never.
.

*A man convicted of murdering his pregnant wife has been cleared for release from a Derbyshire prison after 18 years amid reports of a gagging condition.

Eddie Gilfoyle, 49, was freed from Sudbury open prison in Derbyshire on Wednesday on the condition he did not directly or indirectly contact the media, according to The Times.

Gilfoyle's wife Paula was found hanged in the garage of their home in Upton, Merseyside, in 1992.

A source said Gilfoyle had appeared before a parole board and had been cleared for release. A statement released on Gilfoyle's behalf through a campaign group protesting his innocence suggested his legal team would be appealing against the gagging condition, which reportedly includes his family, supporters and lawyers.

It said: "We are not able to provide a response because the Parole Board has imposed a condition on Eddie's life licence that prohibits him contacting the media either directly or indirectly whether this is regarding his release or his appeal.

"This is a matter that we will be challenging through the courts but until that time we cannot comment."