Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Early report upon Rudy being captured:

Nov. 21 2007

The squad re-read the file of Rudy. Only five days before the discovery of Meredith's body was caught in a nursery in Milan with a knife in the kitchen of the school and took his white laptop. "I was at the station when a South American offered me a bed for 50 euros - had told the police in Milan - I did come here." Had denounced him and let him go and then stop it again two days later with a group of drug dealers and some Africans' drug in his pocket. From the Milan Furniture are now know that long ago had noticed in the most fashionable nightclubs

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...meredith-preso-il-quarto-uomo-sono-stato.html

So Rudy was stopped two days after the Milan nursery incident for drug possession? Or am I misreading this?

I read it that way as well. Teflon Rudy, police charges just slide away.

 

[RoseMontague]

Though, Italy has problems much more sad and serious than this one.

Seems like the fatal gift of beauty, remix.

 

[Machiavelli]

Seems like the fatal gift of beauty, remix.

Yes. At the moment the Polizia di Stato is subject to this code:

http://www.consaproma.com/leggi/legge121.pdf

The whole State Police was organized like this in 1981 as a civil institution but retaining a nature of "agency", not participated, entirely dependant from a high "department of security". Basically this still retains features of secret agencies, the transformation of the corp into a transparent democratic body is not completed. It is still partly an agency "closed" to citizen, partly still thought as a tool to be emploied in a fashion of state of emergency/siege.

The model is currently under change, it is to be changed and the plan of the new whole organization is still under study:

http://www.asca.it/news-SICUREZZA__MARONI_SIGLA_DECRETO_NUOVO_ORDINAMENTOAMMINISTRAZIONE_P_S_-1030393-ORA-.html

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes. At the moment the Polizia di Stato is subject to this code:

http://www.consaproma.com/leggi/legge121.pdf

The whole State Police was organized like this in 1981 as a civil institution but retaining a nature of "agency", not participated, entirely dependant from a high "department of security". Basically this still retains features of secret agencies, the transformation of the corp into a transparent democratic body is not completed. It is still partly an agency "closed" to citizen, partly still thought as a tool to be emploied in a fashion of state of emergency/siege.

The model is currently under change, it is to be changed and the plan of the new whole organization is still under study:

http://www.asca.it/news-SICUREZZA__MARONI_SIGLA_DECRETO_NUOVO_ORDINAMENTOAMMINISTRAZIONE_P_S_-1030393-ORA-.html

This is very interesting. Thank you for this information.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have thought that the only possible crime for a hypothetic cop who sells an investigation file for money, is the crime of abuse of office. The use of an itam from an investigation for private purposes, purposes unrelated to the investigation. There can only be a sanction if a private violation of this kind is suspected on someone.
However, if a lawyer leaks the same file, this action itself could be legitimate. Since a lawyer is not a public officer, he cannot commit an abuse of office, so there would be no misconduct.
I think there has to be a complaint by someone also on abuse of office, unless there is an aggravation; but I'm not sure about the law on this point.
Anyway you need specific elements against someone to open an investigation for abuse of office. And here there is not even evidence that an abuse by an officer actually occurred, since the file could have been released legitimately by an unofficial source.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have thought that the only possible crime for a hypothetic cop who sells an investigation file for money, is the crime of abuse of office. The use of an itam from an investigation for private purposes, purposes unrelated to the investigation. There can only be a sanction if a private violation of this kind is suspected on someone.
However, if a lawyer leaks the same file, this action itself could be legitimate. Since a lawyer is not a public officer, he cannot commit an abuse of office, so there would be no misconduct.
I think there has to be a complaint by someone also on abuse of office, unless there is an aggravation; but I'm not sure about the law on this point.
Anyway you need specific elements against someone to open an investigation for abuse of office. And here there is not even evidence that an abuse by an officer actually occurred, since the file could have been released legitimately by an unofficial source.

I suppose giving tours of the house of horrors and charging journalists and the curious for that would also fall under the same (lack of) oversight?

 

[Machiavelli]

I suppose giving tours of the house of horrors and charging journalists and the curious for that would also fall under the same (lack of) oversight?

Well, I don't know what you are talking about exactly, but an abuse of office is an offence committed by a specific individual, not a lack of oversight; it implies also that the individual operates without an order from a higher officer. If there is an order by a higher officer, even if the order is a crime or illegitimate, the officer must obey. The crime of abuse of office also implies there are illegitimate purposes for the action.
To make an example: yesterday, the Questura allowed a group of demonstrators to cut and break through the security fence of a construction site in Val di Susa. There was a kind of gentlemen's agreement between political demonstrators and the Questura to perform this illegitimate entry.
It is a legitimate order, for a Questura, to allow an action like this, since this anyway falls within the purposes of the Questura which is to provide a situation of order. This would not be legitimate if decided by a police officer in order to favour the political demonstrators on his personal sympathies. But a superior hiearchical level may decide that there is a collective interest in favouring the demonstrators in exchange of advantages.
Itself, a fact cannot be always classified as legitimate or abusive per se. It depends how legitimate is the purpose, which also may depend on the hierarchical level which authorizes it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, I don't know what you are talking about exactly, but an abuse of office is an offence committed by a specific individual, not a lack of oversight; it implies also that the individual operates without an order from a higher officer. If there is an order by a higher officer, even if the order is a crime or illegitimate, the officer must obey. The crime of abuse of office also implies there are illegitimate purposes for the action.
To make an example: yesterday, the Questura allowed a group of demonstrators to cut and break through the security fence of a construction site in Val di Susa. There was a kind of gentlemen's agreement between political demonstrators and the Questura to perform this illegitimate entry.
It is a legitimate order, for a Questura, to allow an action like this, since this anyway falls within the purposes of the Questura which is to provide a situation of order. This would not be legitimate if decided by a police officer in order to favour the political demonstrators on his personal sympathies. But a superior hiearchical level may decide that there is a collective interest in favouring the demonstrators in exchange of advantages.
Itself, a fact cannot be always classified as legitimate or abusive per se. It depends how legitimate is the purpose, which also may depend on the hierarchical level which authorizes it.

So the ones just following orders are in the clear. Sounds familiar.

 

[Machiavelli]

So the ones just following orders are in the clear. Sounds familiar.

This is one thing.
Then there is the thing of the illegitimate or legitimate purpose.

For the first thing, I'm afraid the current code of the state police obligates officers to obey orders even if they are criminal. This is a questionable aspect of this agency, but I think it is actually in the code of public security that I linked above. Those who are following orders apparently are clear. I hope not all orders. But this structure belongs to the state police.

 

[Diocletus]

I complain about people stating the false. Accusing and blaming wrong people, stating wrongly about facts, and offending victims.

Then you will have to look into the mirror and complain.

 

[Diocletus]

Unfortunately there are no impartial organs to conduct internal investigation on professional misconducts in the State Police.

Nice try. No one can believe that there can exist in a free country a police agency with no oversight. It's ridiculous.

 

[Kaosium]

This is one thing.
Then there is the thing of the illegitimate or legitimate purpose.

For the first thing, I'm afraid the current code of the state police obligates officers to obey orders even if they are criminal. This is a questionable aspect of this agency, but I think it is actually in the code of public security that I linked above. Those who are following orders apparently are clear. I hope not all orders. But this structure belongs to the state police.

Wouldn't that mean that as result of the organization structure the one wielding the authority over the Polizia di Stato involved in this case would be responsible for any wrongdoing of subordinates and would be held responsible? Who would that be in this case, Profazio? Or would it be kicked upstairs to Mignini as he officially headed up the investigation?

Where does the 'buck stop,' if you're familiar with that idiom?

 

[Machiavelli]

Nice try. No one can believe that there can exist in a free country a police agency with no oversight. It's ridiculous.

It doesn't seem to me you have brought any elements to prove the picture was leaked by a police source, nor illegitimately.
It doesn't seem you have brought elements to proove it had a prejudicial effect in Knox's trial or on her being in jail.
It doesn't seem to me you have brought evidence that the purpose of the leak was to create prejudice, while this claim was the hinge of your argument.

I recall, your claim was that the picture was leaked in the UK by the "authorities" (which must include the prosecution) in order to create prejudice in Perugia and cause Knox to stay in jail.
So you claimed or insinuated that 1) the purpose was to create prejudice and that 2) it had an effect of creating prejudice, not even that could have prejudice with any logical argument; and that 3) it was done by a decision of authorities; and 3) it was illegitimate.

You have just proved none of these points, nor brought elements to any of them. I think you should just refrain from stating chains of unproven and unsupported claims.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nice try. No one can believe that there can exist in a free country a police agency with no oversight. It's ridiculous.

Machiavelli is completely accurate. Amnesty International has been dinging Italy on this exact issue for ages: they have no police oversight body. It's staggering but it's true.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wouldn't that mean that as result of the organization structure the one wielding the authority over the Polizia di Stato involved in this case would be responsible for any wrongdoing of subordinates and would be held responsible? Who would that be in this case, Profazio? Or would it be kicked upstairs to Mignini as he officially headed up the investigation?
...

I'm really afraid not. Any officer is only responsible for his own orders (or actions done without orders).

 

[Freddy]

Well, I don't know what you are talking about exactly, but an abuse of office is an offence committed by a specific individual, not a lack of oversight;

It isn't necessarily a lack of oversight, but a lack of oversight makes abuses much more likely. The longer the pattern of abuse and the more individuals involved, the more likely lack of oversight is to blame.

it implies also that the individual operates without an order from a higher officer. If there is an order by a higher officer, even if the order is a crime or illegitimate, the officer must obey.

That defense didn't work out too well for the Nuremburg defendants, although in fairness this depends on how obviously illegal - and how serious - the commanded behavior is. Surely you agree that if a police officer is ordered to beat an unarmed and restrained suspect, he in fact must not obey such an order. (I make no assertion as to whether Italian law agrees with me, because I don't know; I'm speaking of a moral obligation not to obey such an order even if disobedience is punishable by law.)

The crime of abuse of office also implies there are illegitimate purposes for the action.

Like trumping up charges to intimidate people who say things you don't like?

To make an example: yesterday, the Questura allowed a group of demonstrators to cut and break through the security fence of a construction site in Val di Susa. There was a kind of gentlemen's agreement between political demonstrators and the Questura to perform this illegitimate entry.
It is a legitimate order, for a Questura, to allow an action like this, since this anyway falls within the purposes of the Questura which is to provide a situation of order. This would not be legitimate if decided by a police officer in order to favour the political demonstrators on his personal sympathies. But a superior hiearchical level may decide that there is a collective interest in favouring the demonstrators in exchange of advantages.

The primary job of the police is to protect the safety of the public. If a superior officer judges in good faith that allowing minor infractions to go unpunished will prevent violence, then he is justified in doing so. I don't consider such an order illegal. In fact, it's smart police work.

Itself, a fact cannot be always classified as legitimate or abusive per se. It depends how legitimate is the purpose, which also may depend on the hierarchical level which authorizes it.

I think this is right, except that I disagree that the legitimacy of the purpose depends on who gave the order. The legitimacy of the purpose depends on why the order was given, not how high up the person who gave the order is.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nice try. No one can believe that there can exist in a free country a police agency with no oversight. It's ridiculous.

About the State Police, there are some bodies that can perform internal investigation, but they are not impartial.

 

[Machiavelli]

....
I think this is right, except that I disagree that the legitimacy of the purpose depends on who gave the order. The legitimacy of the purpose depends on why the order was given, not how high up the person who gave it is.

It may also depend. This is what i wrote; I mean that it depends also on the scope of task and powers appointed to the person. I mean it should be a decision within the scope of their tasks.
I agree to the principle that the distinction primarily depends on why the order is given.
But because the state police tends to be political, there is a political level of assessments. For example: drug dealing is often tolerated, by a decision of the Questore. But a low rank officer should not, by his own decision and own initiative, decide to not investigate or not capture a drug dealer. A questore might do that, might issue the order, becasue he is given the task of making this kind of assessments, while a low rank is not.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amnesty International Reports

Nice try. No one can believe that there can exist in a free country a police agency with no oversight. It's ridiculous.

Diocletus,

I have linked several times to an Amnesty International report from 2007 (also 2008) which suggested something similar.

 

[Freddy]

It may also depend. This is what i wrote; I mean that it depends also on the scope of task and powers appointed to the person. I mean it should be a decision within the scope of their tasks.
I agree to the principle that the distinction primarily depends on why the order is given.
But because the state police tends to be political, there is a political level of assessments. For example: drug dealing is often tolerated, by a decision of the Questore. But a low rank officer should not, by his own decision and own initiative, decide to not investigate or not capture a drug dealer. A questore might do that, might issue the order, becasue he is given the task of making this kind of assessments, while a low rank is not.

Thanks, I think I understand what you meant now. Do you mean things like not taking down (for example) a drug dealer, or not doing so right away, as long as the purpose is something legitimate (such as catching a bigger fish)? And that the beat cop should not be the one making that decision? Okay, I agree with that.