Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Knox VS Anthony

Yesterday as I posted a celebratory blurb about my glee over Amanda Knox's newfound freedom, I got an interesting reply.  A friend of mine said the following:

 Yes, I don't think that she will be traveling internationally for quite some time! I wish we could have had Casey Anthony sent over there for her trial!

Packed into that short response is a ton of information that could take us in several directions. But let me unpack it this way. 

1. We have a HUGE contrast of characters with one very obvious innocent person wrongfully punished and another seemingly guilty person that got away with it.

2. Despite our negative opinions of Italian Justice, the Casey Anthony trial proves that our system isn't perfect either.

3. Public perception is very POWERFUL.  The entire reason Knox was ever found guilty was due to her actions with then boyfriend right after their friend was found dead.  The photos of the couple kissing portrayed to the Italian public that they were unaffected and perhaps even celebrating.  In the case of Anthony, though courts found her NOT GUILTY, she will proabably not ever enjoy an anonymous life without any public confrontation or interference.

4. Justice is very important to us.  These two cases alone have generated so much emotional outcry that I need not site other famous trials to prove my point.  People want accountability where mistakes and/or blatant crimes were commmited.  And no one wants the innocent wrongfully paying the price.  This fact speaks to our God-given & shared morality but that is a subject for another post.

What are your thoughts about these two women and the outcomes of their court cases?

8 comments:

Steven said...

I think both stories prove the differences in the 2 justice systems.

In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Here they have to have enough solid enough evidence that isn't circumstantial. Which was the problem with Anthony's trial. There was enough evidence that the majority of the people believed she was guilty, but enough of the jury did not believe without a resonable doubt it really happened based on the evidence.

In Italy you really have to prove your innocense which is why she was locked up for so long. The public opinion was that she was guilty and she was left with the burden of proving she wasn't.

It all reminds me of the old IRS code. It used to be the IRS could audit you and you had to prove you did nothing wrong. Now it is the other way around. If the IRS wants to audit you, they have to prove you did something wrong. I for one believe it is the correct way to handle things.

Sometimes people can use that system, which I believe Anthony and her lawyers did. It's a fine line but I am glad we are on the side of assuming innocense first. With our system bad actions and people will sometimes get off. That is the nature of assuming the good in people and having to prove they are guilty. Sometimes you just can't do it. People hide their bad actions and that is human nature. I for one would rather error on the assumption of innocense side than risk punishing an innocent person.

God will handle the problems in the end. No sin will get away unpunished. Deuteronomy 19:15

Jim said...

Great insights Steven!

Pam P. said...

Didn't give the Knox case any attention; watched a little of the Anthony trial. Found it disgusting. Decided I have my own "dramas", so didn't need either of theirs!

Dee M. said...

I had to ask my husband who Amanda Knox was and didn't watch the Anthony trial, just heard the ridiculous verdict. My TV watching revolves around nick jr. I think the Anthony trial sparked interest with moms because every mom has been frustrated with a child and can understand that aspect but to take the life of your child because of those frustrations is down right cruel and requires punishment of some kind, which I am sure will be given to her in one way or another.

Ralph H. said...

Public opinion convicted Anthony, though the jury was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Would this same public fight to the end to convict Richard Jewell (instead of Eric Rudolph) of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics disaster, or tirelessly chase someone from the Arabian peninsula for Oklahoma city (1994), instead of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols? In Knox, the evidence was simply insufficient. Juries are in quest of the truth, not a perception or predisposition of a specific person's guilt.

Jim said...

Ralph...I agree that is what jury is supposed to do. I wonder though how often they are successful with putting away their personal perceptions?

Jake S. said...

I didn't keep up with either one that much due to lack of interest but from what I did gather is Anthony is a psycho and did it where Knox was caught up in some bad stuff but did not do anything. This is why I stay in my own little world.

Laurie W. said...

I watched all of Anthony, kept up recently with Knox. Anthony got away with murder. I think we are suspicious and fearful of Americans under other countries's judicial systems. We inherently think they won't be fair (just) like ours is supposed to be. Now I'm watching the Conrad Murray trail and I will go on record saying, The only way he could have 3 girlfriends who look like that is by telling everyone he knew that he was Michael Jackson's personal Dr. and getting those women access to Michael Jackson.... So he would do anything he could to stay his Dr. including giving him whatever drug he (MJ) wanted.