And yours in turn is based on the template of ours. By your logic, ours rules all.
I'm an internet expert on all legal systems so am therefore correct.
22-year-old Amanda Knox found guilty
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
And yours in turn is based on the template of ours. By your logic, ours rules all.
I'm an internet expert on all legal systems so am therefore correct.
That's so blatantly obvious it doesn't need to be mentioned anyway. Any legal system where the judges wear powdered wigs >>>> all other systems.
Well, it's not surprising that countries who want to distance themselves from the worst enemy of the US will use the US as a template for their system. As for Iraq, there is that little inconvenience of the military occupation.
Thus, via traslative property, the Italian system is the best! QEDActually, yours is based on the ancient Roman legal system!
Zomg! Your system is based on the Italian one! Run, they're coming to get you and expose your sexual history!
I'm kidding, btw. And yes, the wigs rule. Plus, the judge is 'm'lud'. If you say 'my lord', ie saying all the letters instead of being lazy, you're a ponce and not worth listening to
I was hoping you'd catch that
Zomg! Your system is based on the Italian one! Run, they're coming to get you and expose your sexual history!
And yes, the wigs rule. Plus, the judge is 'm'lud'. If you say 'my lord', ie saying all the letters instead of being lazy, you're a ponce and not worth listening to
The current judge who handles all modifications to my divorce decree is more of a senile git, which is how I refer to him.
Honorifics are funny. In England, you call the judge "My Lord", in the US, "Your Honor", in Italy... "Mr Judge". Meh. Talk about a downer. For once, we are quite quite sparing of titles about this.And yes, the wigs rule. Plus, the judge is 'm'lud'. If you say 'my lord', ie saying all the letters instead of being lazy, you're a ponce and not worth listening to
Ig, is your defense in this thread based on you actually believing that she is guilty (even in the face of a total lack of evidence to suggest that) or out of a misguided nationalistic, "I have to defend my country against all," mentality?
Talk about loaded question.
Before replying, I will turn the question around: is the defence of Amanda Knox based in actually believing that she's innocent (despite evidences to suggest that), or out of a misguided nationalistic "she's American she can't be guilty" mentality? Many have made clear that they are basing their opinion on the subject at hand and not swift emotional judgments, and I appreciate that. But anti-Italian sentiments are running high right now (funny, since the verdict has been said to be based on anti-Americanism, which is patently silly given the circumstances).
However, as for the issue: I don't know if she's guilty or not. I'm not defending the verdict. Actually, I couldn't care less about her. I'm defending the system, the fact that Italy is not some brutish dictatorship lost in the Middle-Ages that judge people based on their sex lives or nationality. She's been judged on the evidences: agree or not agree with the results, this has not been a witch-hunt. Since that was the accusation, I felt that I should made that clear.
As for her guilty or innocence, as I said over and over, fuck me if I know.
That's where you're missing the point. The people here who are bashing the Italian Judicial System are stating that she was convicted on *faulty* evidence. Evidence that would have never been upheld in the courts of their country.Talk about loaded question.
Before replying, I will turn the question around: is the defence of Amanda Knox based in actually believing that she's innocent (despite evidences to suggest that), or out of a misguided nationalistic "she's American she can't be guilty" mentality? Many have made clear that they are basing their opinion on the subject at hand and not swift emotional judgments, and I appreciate that. But anti-Italian sentiments are running high right now (funny, since the verdict has been said to be based on anti-Americanism, which is patently silly given the circumstances).
However, as for the issue: I don't know if she's guilty or not. I'm not defending the verdict. Actually, I couldn't care less about her. I'm defending the system, the fact that Italy is not some brutish dictatorship lost in the Middle-Ages that judge people based on their sex lives or nationality. She's been judged on the evidences: agree or not agree with the results, this has not been a witch-hunt. Since that was the accusation, I felt that I should made that clear.
As for her guilty or innocence, as I said over and over, fuck me if I know.
Talk about loaded question.
Those are the best kind.
My issues are with this case alone. I do not feel it was handled properly, I think that the evidence against her was weak at best and that she was tried more on the case that she was an odd ball individual, who didn't meet social normal standards... As an individual who could be classified the same, I always take issue with such cases mind you. I also have issues with and a great distrust with authority and their abuse of power.... And a foreigner from a country with which Italy has had, issues of late, and the prosecutor twisted events to make her look more guilty because he didn't have hard evidence to convict her.
30 hours of questioning by police with no translator, accusations of physical incidents during the questioning, A lack of, contradictory, and tainted physical evidence, and a strong political over tone to the whole incident.
I am not saying it was a witch hunt, I'm saying that people can and are lead to wrong places by their own prejudices, and that the parties involved in this case may not have been as... neutral as they should have been when investigating the case.
Last edited:
Faulty given their standard. Which is not the beginning and the end of all legal systems. I agree that some of the evidence are not clear-cut: the DNA forensic, for example, has been the object of attacks. The fact is, the prosecutors claimed it was reliable (which is their job to claim), the defendant claimed it was not (which is their job to claim), but in the end the judging board accepted the evidence. I suppose they had good reasons for doing that. I'm not going to give more credence to the defendant because, well just because.
Also, people have been bitching that jury was not sequestered, even given the fact that there was no jury, and that judges are not sequestered by Italian law. The fact that there are different systems around is something that some people struggle to understand.
Very good point, and I would add that I would rather be judged under the Italian standard of law than many other countries on this planet.
Faulty under any logical standard.
Well, the victim was British, so it'd still show up in Britain probably.
But yeah, definitely. Hell, the entire conversation seems to be about Knox, with the fact that Raffaele Sollecito got sentenced at the same time for the same murder being consigned to a lesser factoid to be twatted about, a bargaining chip in how one chooses to define this murder.
Damn I'm screwing up today. But you're right, Italians in the US? No problem.
US people in Italy? Well, I read somewhere someone comparing the Italian legal system to the Inquistion (or more accurately, descended from the Inquisiton...) which is about as fair, impartial and sensible a statement as suggesting the American legal tradition is all Scopes*, Salem and Jim Crow.
I do wonder how much this is related to the same reluctance to be involved in the Hague; though I'm altogether too ignorant of the specifics of the case and the niceties of the distinction between Italian and American law to judge the argument sabove (read: I am a moron).
*Corrected. Judicial misprudence in Spokane was a clerical error. Terminate Buttle, not Tuttle, or however Brazil went.
US people in Italy? Well, I read somewhere someone comparing the Italian legal system to the Inquistion (or more accurately, descended from the Inquisiton...) which is about as fair, impartial and sensible a statement as suggesting the American legal tradition is all Scopes*, Salem and Jim Crow.
I do wonder how much this is related to the same reluctance to be involved in the Hague; though I'm altogether too ignorant of the specifics of the case and the niceties of the distinction between Italian and American law to judge the argument sabove (read: I am a moron).
*Corrected. Judicial misprudence in Spokane was a clerical error. Terminate Buttle, not Tuttle, or however Brazil went.
Last edited:
What's the story about "Spokane"?
Similar threads
