I heard about the case of Amanda Knox recently (American convicted of murder in Italy), and found out that when Amanda was accused, her aunt was in Germany, and urged her to cross the border and return to the U.S. rather than face trial in Italy.

This raises an interesting question. Let's assume for argument's sake that you were accused of a serious crime in a foreign country and you knew you didn't do it. Would you get out of Dodge? Would you feel an obligation to abide by the legal processes in that country? If you know you aren't denying justice, is it wrong to return to your country of citizenship? What if the legal system you are accused by is corrupt, and your trial, if you get one, will probably not be fair?

Views: 41

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Are we assuming she didn't do it?
No, we're assuming you're accused and you're innocent. What would you do.
Well, maybe it's just me reading too much between the lines but I was under the impression that there was more being implied here. But for argument's sake, I'll play along. If it were established that the legal system in question is riddled with corruption, then I'd probably consider leaving that country, whether guilty or innocent. Although, on second thought, if the system is really as corrupted as claimed, I might as well bribe the judge to rule in my favour. The odds are it would work. That way I wouldn't give rise to reasonable suspects about my reason for fleeing the country in question, so I'd get out of it (il)legally clean and with my reputation intact.
If I had no reasonable expectation of a fair trial and no presumption of innocence, I would GTFO.
Let's assume for argument's sake that you were accused of a serious crime in a foreign country and you knew you didn't do it... Would you feel an obligation to abide by the legal processes in that country? If you know you aren't denying justice, is it wrong to return to your country of citizenship?

If the legal system is not corrupt, then I would contend that by fleeing one is denying justice. Presumption of innocence is a fairly standard legal concept throughout the (non-corrupt) world. The denial of justice is to the victim of the crime, the perpetrator of the crime, and to myself. I think it would be immoral not to face the court and my accusers.

What if the legal system you are accused by is corrupt, and your trial, if you get one, will probably not be fair?

I would flee. In such a case there is no justice, and am therefore not bound by morality to stay.
I'd get the hell out even if I did do it.
This is an interesting trend I have noticed in the US media coverage of the case. How is it that the US media tends to assume that the American justice system is better than that of Italy? I have no doubt the same accusations of corruption and suspicions of unfair trials would have arisen had the situation occurred elsewhere. And, interestingly (though predictably), said accusations and suspicions became most prominent after Ms Knox was found guilty. Would they have disappeared altogether had she been found innocent?

I know this is somewhat beside the point that you, John, wish to raise but I would be interested to hear some American comments on this, myself being European.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service