7 March 2011
"Amanda Knox Trial: United States vs Italy”
The United States and Italy have extremely different methods of conducting criminal trials. In the United States, a defendant's guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt for them to be found guilty of a criminal act. The entire burden of proof lies on the prosecutor who has to prove the defendant's guilt by the presentation of incriminating evidence. If there is any doubt at the end of the trial, then the verdict must be "not guilty." Italy, on the other hand, handles criminal matters in a much more unethical manner. On November 2, 2007, Amanda Knox was found guilty of both murder and sexual violence of Meredith Kercher and sentenced to 26 years in a Perugian prison. If the Amanda Knox trial was held in the United States, using America's rules of evidence, then the outcome of the trial would have been in favor of Amanda Knox.
There were only a few key pieces of key evidence found at the Kercher crime scene, none of which can be positively linked to Amanda Knox. The key pieces of evidence that led to her conviction were a knife, a bloody footprint, and Kercher’s bra clip with Amanda’s boyfriend’s DNA on it (Longhini). After reviewing this evidence, many experts will agree that Knox’s conviction is absolutely absurd. Because of the lack of evidence and no suspects, the Perugian investigators used the media’s influence to persuade the judges and citizens of Knox’s guilt.
Even if the evidence against Knox was solid enough for a conviction, the method in which it was collected is unacceptable. Many of the proper procedures were not complied with. The video footage from the crime scene showed critical flaws and would have been frowned upon even thirty-years ago. For example, after a ruler was placed on the side of a bloody footprint, a rubber glove reaches down with a piece of white cloth and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document