• 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.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Vixen said:
It's worth noting that it was at least thirty-eight different judges and lay judges who did the judging of the merits, the appeals and the convictions. It's just as well it wasn't Mignini or the other two prosecutors (equally senior as Mignini) who were responsible!
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that the pair was rightfully exonerated.

By the way, ever find a citation for your claim that women are given harsher sentences when convicted of more heinous crimes?
 
Vixen said:
Please do refer to my earlier answer to the same question.
Click to expand...
Then don't make bare assertions if you cannot back up the claim. It is trivially easy to find you are wrong by searching the internet, but I was giving you the opportunity to present something I may have missed. As Stacyhs so eloquently put it, one of your assfacts.
 
N
Disbelief said:
Then don't make bare assertions if you cannot back up the claim. It is trivially easy to find you are wrong by searching the internet, but I was giving you the opportunity to present something I may have missed. As Stacyhs so eloquently put it, one of your assfacts.
Click to expand...
It was hardly a 'bare assertion'. I clearly stated what it was based on. Incidentally, re the topic in question, are people aware that 'the prosecutor' is not just one person, like a bad Hollywood movie, but a whole office of people providing expert legal analysis and opinion, together with back up support? Likewise, the forensic police also isn't one individual?
 
Vixen said:
It was hardly a 'bare assertion'. I clearly stated what it was based on. Incidentally, re the topic in question, are people aware that 'the prosecutor' is not just one person, like a bad Hollywood movie, but a whole office of people providing expert legal analysis and opinion, together with back up support? Likewise, the forensic police also isn't one individual?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the prosecutor (typically---at least in the US anyway) is the one who is in charge of the investigation and what evidence to use at a trial.

I don't know what it's like in Italy.
 
Vixen said:
It was hardly a 'bare assertion'. I clearly stated what it was based on. Incidentally, re the topic in question, are people aware that 'the prosecutor' is not just one person, like a bad Hollywood movie, but a whole office of people providing expert legal analysis and opinion, together with back up support? Likewise, the forensic police also isn't one individual?
Click to expand...
Yes, you stated the following;
Yes, I did criminology as part of my Psychology degree but only on a basic second-year option level. What I found out is, that studies show that where there are defendants that include a male and a female, juries and courts almost always assume the male is the main perpetrator and the female merely his accessory, so the male gets the tough sentence and the female the lesser one. In addition, juries find it hard to comprehend a female can commit a serious crime, such as premeditated murder so women are more likely to get off (statistics show). However, WHEN females are convicted of serious heinous crimes such as the murder of a child or something as aggravated as the crime against Kercher, they are looked upon more severely and given harsher sentences
(and we saw Knox get 28 years).
Click to expand...
OK, so this was based on what you claimed "studies show". Only problem is you're the only one who seems to be aware of these "studies", and apparently you can't provide a link to any of these studies?

Per Oxford Dictionary: A bare assertion is a confident statement of fact or belief made without any supporting evidence, reasoning, or justification.

So yes, this is a bare assertion, though you can change that by providing some evidence. Otherwise, this truly is yet another assfact.

And BTW, Amanda and Raffaele both received sentences of 25 years, both by Massei and Nencini. Massei gave Amanda an extra year for calunnia, and Nencini upped it to three years extra. So Amanda got 28, not because she was a female convicted of a serious heinous crime, but because of the calunnia charge. She was not given a harsher sentence than the male in this case, Raffaele.
 
Vixen said:
N

It was hardly a 'bare assertion'. I clearly stated what it was based on. Incidentally, re the topic in question, are people aware that 'the prosecutor' is not just one person, like a bad Hollywood movie, but a whole office of people providing expert legal analysis and opinion, together with back up support? Likewise, the forensic police also isn't one individual?
Click to expand...
As TruthCalls pointed out, it most clearly is a bare assertion. You based it off of your memory, which we have seen time and again is rather faulty.
 
Disbelief said:
When you either provide source for your claim or retract your assertion. Along with all the other requests for sources throughout this thread.
Click to expand...

Holy smokes! I'm 69 years old (a very good year), and I don't think I'll live long enough to read all that crap.
 
Disbelief said:
Please explain what the ad hominem was.
Click to expand...

Look, if you are genuinely interested in Criminology and sentencing, start a thread on it. I am not going to search for that particular paper just for the sake of it, when I sense you aren't really asking in good faith, but merely point-scoring. For example, your ad hoc personal comment about my supposedly being cognitively challenged [- the age-old male put down]). So show good faith and I might go to the trouble of digging out that particular study.
 
Vixen said:
Look, if you are genuinely interested in Criminology and sentencing, start a thread on it. I am not going to search for that particular paper just for the sake of it, when I sense you aren't really asking in good faith, but merely point-scoring. For example, your ad hoc personal comment about my supposedly being cognitively challenged [- the age-old male put down]). So show good faith and I might go to the trouble of digging out that particular study.
Click to expand...
There was no ad hominem (or ad hoc as you are now calling it). You claimed you took a course, and during that course you examined studies, and those studies confirmed;
"However, WHEN females are convicted of serious heinous crimes such as the murder of a child or something as aggravated as the crime against Kercher, they are looked upon more severely and given harsher sentences"
Click to expand...
You were asked for evidence to support such an assertion and you pointed back to your initial explanation, which I included in my post. The problem is, we were not in that class with you, we did not see those studies, and now you claim you don't have your notes, and, we assume, a link to those studies. So please, excuse us if we don't just take your word for it. And by pointing out that you can not offer a shred of evidence to support the claim is not an ad hominem, but it does show that it IS a bare assertion, because, just as the definition (which I also included in my post) points out, you are not including any supporting evidence, reasoning, or justification.

The good faith was in asking you to provide evidence to support the claim. I'm sure you would do exactly the same thing should I make a claim you don't necessarily believe in. And now you're implying you can dig out that study (I would point out you initially said studies (plural), and now you're claiming study (singular)) so since you started this by making the claim, why don't you show good faith and provide evidence to back it up?

BTW, are you going to address your "(and we saw Knox get 28 years)" comment, which was clearly intended to show Amanda got a stiffer sentence than Raffaele's 25. Unfortunately for you, Amanda's 28 year sentence included 3 years for calunnia, so her sentence for murder was identical to Raffaele's, and it did not support your claim. I get why you don't want to address this, but let's see a little good faith and honesty and concede you were wrong and Amanda's 28 years did not support your claim.
 
Vixen said:
Look, if you are genuinely interested in Criminology and sentencing, start a thread on it. I am not going to search for that particular paper just for the sake of it, when I sense you aren't really asking in good faith, but merely point-scoring. For example, your ad hoc personal comment about my supposedly being cognitively challenged [- the age-old male put down]). So show good faith and I might go to the trouble of digging out that particular study.
Click to expand...
No, you made a claim in this thread and you cannot support that claim. Once again, you want to play the victim instead of supporting your assertions.
 
TruthCalls said:
There was no ad hominem (or ad hoc as you are now calling it). You claimed you took a course, and during that course you examined studies, and those studies confirmed;

You were asked for evidence to support such an assertion and you pointed back to your initial explanation, which I included in my post. The problem is, we were not in that class with you, we did not see those studies, and now you claim you don't have your notes, and, we assume, a link to those studies. So please, excuse us if we don't just take your word for it. And by pointing out that you can not offer a shred of evidence to support the claim is not an ad hominem, but it does show that it IS a bare assertion, because, just as the definition (which I also included in my post) points out, you are not including any supporting evidence, reasoning, or justification.

The good faith was in asking you to provide evidence to support the claim. I'm sure you would do exactly the same thing should I make a claim you don't necessarily believe in. And now you're implying you can dig out that study (I would point out you initially said studies (plural), and now you're claiming study (singular)) so since you started this by making the claim, why don't you show good faith and provide evidence to back it up?

BTW, are you going to address your "(and we saw Knox get 28 years)" comment, which was clearly intended to show Amanda got a stiffer sentence than Raffaele's 25. Unfortunately for you, Amanda's 28 year sentence included 3 years for calunnia, so her sentence for murder was identical to Raffaele's, and it did not support your claim. I get why you don't want to address this, but let's see a little good faith and honesty and concede you were wrong and Amanda's 28 years did not support your claim.
Click to expand...

Here's one such paper here, which is quite recent, from a quick glance in Google:

Because of the fact that it is considered inappropriate for females to commit violent acts such as armed robbery, when they do so, it was found that they were dealt with more punitively. The thesis that has been used here is that of the “evil woman,” which suggests that the female has compromised her role expectations by committing an offense which is not seen as appropriate to offending women. Thus, they are treated more negatively. In the cases of Sarah Thornton, who is a female, and R. V. Palmer, who is a male, the facts were mostly the same, but the outcomes in court were different. Sarah was convicted and received a life sentence for the offense of murdering her evil husband. She argued that it was an accident; she sharpened a kitchen knife, pointed it at her violent husband, expecting him to knock it away, and accidentally stabbed and killed him. This was interpreted as indicative of her intention to kill him. She told one of her friends that “I am going to kill him” a few months before the incident, which was not treated as an expression of exasperation, but as an indication of intent. She stated that, “I didn’t walk in there with the intention of stabbing him. I just wanted to show him how far he had driven me.” In contrast, in the case of R. V. Palmer, the appellant stabbed his wife and killed her. He argued that he brought a knife from the kitchen only to frighten her, but accidentally killed her. Unlike Thornton, he was charged with manslaughter, not murder. Then, the Appeals Court reduced his sentence from seven years to five. Thornton, meanwhile, continues to serve her life sentence.
Law Teacher

I believe there is little point discussing academic subjects here because people's idea of debate seems to knee-jerk arguing, which is not the same thing as debating. (I wonder whether anyone is genuinely interested in this or whether it is just arguing for the sake of it.)

The point of the study I referred to is where there is a male and female perp, the male is generally seen as the 'ring leader' and gets the greater sentence (in general, as of the time the study was done, obviously not always), so given Knox' sentence was equivalent to Sollecito's and that it was considered it was Knox who wielded the fatal stab/s, we see here that Knox was not seen as the lesser party. Is that because of staid conservative Italian attitudes or is it because of the perception it is extra heinous when done by a female? <shrug> Who knows? Plus there was the extra three years on top for criminal calumny and Knox was the one charged with theft of Meredith's possessions, charges, which were dropped.
 
Vixen said:
It's worth noting that it was at least thirty-eight different judges and lay judges who did the judging of the merits, the appeals and the convictions. It's just as well it wasn't Mignini or the other two prosecutors (equally senior as Mignini) who were responsible!
Click to expand...
look.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom