I don't pretend to know much about the evidence in this case other than what I've read in this thread, but I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with feeling personally invested in miscarriages of justice. The whole point of having strict rules of evidence and procedure that must be followed in criminal trials is that the next time the state chooses to exercise its power to punish an individual, that individual could be you.
I don't know whether Knox is guilty--but I do know that even if we assume that all of the evidence that her detractors have brought forth is 100% true (and there seems to be considerable doubt on that score anyway) that it falls MILES short of proving her guilt to any reasonably just standard. She should not go to jail, she should not be extradited, she should not be imprisoned--not because she is "innocent" (though she may be) but because a state (including a foreign state) must be held to a higher standard than what we have seen in her legal proceedings thus far.
To put this another way: permitting the Italian justice system to convict and imprison a person based on the paper-thin evidence they have tendered would amount to saying that we no longer presume innocence at all, but put the onus on the accused to prove they didn't do the crime they are accused of. That's not right, and it's not justice. And in that sense, your actual opinions about Knox herself are irrelevant.
And you'd better believe it's personal. There is no more personal subject matter in law than controlling the exercise of state power against individuals.
|