• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:

{highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,

You are obviously continuing in your opinion. You have a right to your wrongful opinion.

A "speech crime" - which sounds like something George Orwell would have written about in his dystopian novel 1984 - committed while under custody without benefit of counsel, or while under interrogation without benefit of counsel, or while under torture - of incriminating one's self or someone else, is indeed subject to a kind of immunity. One cannot be convicted, according to ECHR case-law, of such a crime, based on Ibrahim et al. v the UK (and citations therein) and Dayanan v Turkey. So get over it (as we say, an English language idiom, at least in the US).

If this were not so, police would have immunity to torture or otherwise coerce persons to commit such "speech crimes" as calunnia and autocalunnia, which are both crimes in Italy. It is a shame that the Italian judiciary, or some sadly large part of them, are so grossly incompetent, or grossly in disregard of human rights, that they are not aware of this issue. They should be, however, because of the Salduz v Turkey and subsequent judgments by ECHR are well-known otherwise in the CoE countries.

The Italian judiciary may be an exception among the Western countries in its use of methods and neglect or abuse of rights, including those in Italian law and the Italian Constitution, violations otherwise found primarily among the former communist dictatorships. Perhaps Italy's unfortunate history as a fascist state has resulted in this regrettable current situation of the arbitrary and unjust application of law.
Click to expand...

Calunnia is not categorized as "speech crime" by Italian jurisprudence, it is instead categorized among the "crimes of danger" (where the main endangered party is the State in the function of administration of justice) as well as of "malice" and within the category of crimes of obstruction of justice, and may not involve speech, however all this not important.
The point is that there can't be two categories of citizens, those who are free and those who are under questioning or in custody, with the latter category being immune from some crimes and not having to obey to the same laws. It would be manifestly unconstitutional, but above all - and this is especially true when you consider the situation of police questioning - it would be completely unreasonable, legally speaking, because that would mean that informants under police questionings would be immune from their actions no matter what they do within their roles as informants. That would create a privileged category under a legal shield protecting them from citizens' duties and with a license to commit damaging an dangerous actions, which are serious crimes for normal citizens, and that would basically cancel the activity of informants, destroy such investigation resource practically turning them into something worthless and dangerous. This so obviously damages humans rights or normal citizens as it undermines the basic functions of institutions pursueing justice.
Your attached inference that otherwise "police would have immunity to torture or otherwise coerce persons" is manifest nonsense. So are your statements about fascism and alleged laws of communist regimes.
Maybe you should consider that it's not the Italian judiciary those who are grossly incompetent; it might be your own interpretation of the 'Salduz principle' that is grossly incompetent in terms of basic principles of justice. Cases of Salduz, Ibrahim and Dayanan are obviously different from Knox's calunnia, this is something anyone can see. But the best thing would be to move towards a better comprehension of the overall set and structure of principles - all principles - of criminal justice and human rights.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Absolutely not!

I dislike the pontification amongst some commentators, that our justice system <insert country of choice> is so much better that Italy’s.

Italy has jurisdiction, if Raffaele and Amanda convictions are confirmed as many here seem to believe they have the option to appeal to the ECHR where thank goodness the kind of bare face lobbying would be ignored.
Click to expand...

Really? You think justice totally separate from public oversight is a good thing? While I can certainly appreciate the idea that justice should be practiced in a vacuum, I know that public review of the courts can be the difference between wrongful convictions and true justce. For example, the Dreyfus Affair, the West Memphis and countless others.
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
Clearly, I am speaking of UK jurisprudence.

In the UK Raffaele’s book would not have been published, TV interviews would not have happened. That being said, I get the distinct impression that there is still no groundswell of Italian public in support for Raffaele Sollecito, hence lobbying really only relates or applies across the pond.
Click to expand...

I'm 'speaking' about the situation in the UK too, but it isn't its jurisprudence you are speaking about - a small matter however.

What you say about his book isn't correct. The rule you are talking about applies to 'active' cases. In the Uk, once Mr Sollecito had been found 'Not Guilty', he wouldn't have been re-tried. We don't do 'double jeopardy' here.
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
Clearly, I am speaking of UK jurisprudence.

In the UK Raffaele’s book would not have been published, TV interviews would not have happened. That being said, I get the distinct impression that there is still no groundswell of Italian public in support for Raffaele Sollecito, hence lobbying really only relates or applies across the pond.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if you think John Kercher's articles and books should have been published, whilst the court process was ongoing?
 
Machiavelli said:
Calunnia is not categorized as "speech crime" by Italian jurisprudence, it is instead categorized among the "crimes of danger" (where the main endangered party is the State in the function of administration of justice) as well as of "malice" and within the category of crimes of obstruction of justice, and may not involve speech, however all this not important.
The point is that there can't be two categories of citizens, those who are free and those who are under questioning or in custody, with the latter category being immune from some crimes and not having to obey to the same laws. It would be manifestly unconstitutional, but above all - and this is especially true when you consider the situation of police questioning - it would be completely unreasonable, legally speaking, because that would mean that informants under police questionings would be immune from their actions no matter what they do within their roles as informants. That would create a privileged category under a legal shield protecting them from citizens' duties and with a license to commit damaging an dangerous actions, which are serious crimes for normal citizens, and that would basically cancel the activity of informants, destroy such investigation resource practically turning them into something worthless and dangerous. This so obviously damages humans rights or normal citizens as it undermines the basic functions of institutions pursueing justice.
Your attached inference that otherwise "police would have immunity to torture or otherwise coerce persons" is manifest nonsense. So are your statements about fascism and alleged laws of communist regimes.
Maybe you should consider that it's not the Italian judiciary those who are grossly incompetent; it might be your own interpretation of the 'Salduz principle' that is grossly incompetent in terms of basic principles of justice. Cases of Salduz, Ibrahim and Dayanan are obviously different from Knox's calunnia, this is something anyone can see. But the best thing would be to move towards a better comprehension of the overall set and structure of principles - all principles - of criminal justice and human rights.
Click to expand...

Yes - let us know when your judiciary manages to do that, won't you?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Absolutely not!

I dislike the pontification amongst some commentators, that our justice system <insert country of choice> is so much better that Italy’s.

Italy has jurisdiction, if Raffaele and Amanda convictions are confirmed as many here seem to believe they have the option to appeal to the ECHR where thank goodness the kind of bare face lobbying would be ignored.
Click to expand...

While I do believe that there are many injustices in the US as well, I think it is horrible type of thinking that cedes justice and the truth to just government institutions . Weak minded is how I view that philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
I'm 'speaking' about the situation in the UK too, but it isn't its jurisprudence you are speaking about - a small matter however.

What you say about his book isn't correct. The rule you are talking about applies to 'active' cases. In the Uk, once Mr Sollecito had been found 'Not Guilty', he wouldn't have been re-tried. We don't do 'double jeopardy' here.
Click to expand...

This is an active court case, Raffaele and Amanda are not convicted of Meredith Kerchers murder, right?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
No! I remain horrified that the Kercher family had to deal with the brutal murder of daughter, sister and friend in a media frenzy, one which I doubt allows them to celebrate Meredith’s short life.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the asinine Italian justice system they would have had some closure long ago. Condemning 2 innocent people made it infinitely worse. I'm sure all posters on this forum are horrified that EVERYONE (sans Guede) had to deal with the disgusting media frenzy.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Clearly, I am speaking of UK jurisprudence.

In the UK Raffaele’s book would not have been published, TV interviews would not have happened. That being said, I get the distinct impression that there is still no groundswell of Italian public in support for Raffaele Sollecito, hence lobbying really only relates or applies across the pond.
Click to expand...

I can't even get the damn channel!
 
CoulsdonUK said:
This is an active court case, Raffaele and Amanda are not convicted of Meredith Kerchers murder, right?
Click to expand...

In the UK - which was the scenario you were trying to construct - the case would have ceased to be active upon acquittal. That's the point!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom