Although I find the entire Amanda Knox saga tragic, I have to say that I feel very different about it than Susan apparently does. True, there is a lot about the Amanda Knox trial that is unsettling: a prosecutor advancing bizarre case theories, a jury apparently driven by nationalist pride, a sensationalist media account that likely tainted the jury pool, etc. Still, I’m not sure if this case merits State Department involvement, let alone “the big guns.”
As much as we might prefer otherwise, American standards of justice do not apply around the world. Indeed, it is difficult to establish any principles of due process and justice that apply with equal weight throughout the world. (Although Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is an attempt to define such rights, even that list is controversial and sometimes ambiguous.) Thus, Americans cannot expect to enjoy the protections of “American” due process everywhere they go; travel should be accompanied by a recognition that one leaves the protective sphere of America and enters places where the protections might be minimal at best.
Therefore, the government of the United States should probably only get involved in foreign trials in two instances: (1) where a trial violates well-established principles of international law or (2) where a trial violates the laws of the country where the trial is held. Even in the second instance, however, involvement should be limited, as a nation should be permitted to interpret its own laws and administer its own system in the manner of its choosing. Most of the critiques of the Knox trial I have seen don’t implicate either situation, however. Instead, they are simple attacks on the “weight of the evidence” or the “bias of the prosecutor.” I don’t think that merits American intervention.
These principles may seem disquieting in a situation like the Amanda Knox trial. How can we really allow such an “injustice” to proceed? Nevertheless, as Susan noted, our American system of justice is not that receptive to outside influences. See, e.g., the Medellin situation involving Texas’ rejection of an ICJ order and international condemnation of our death penalty in general. If we wish to construct our system of justice in a sphere free from outside influence, we should treat other systems in the same manner.
Lastly, I would question the notion of “American” justice. It almost goes without saying that American prosecutors are often imperfect instruments of justice, and American juries are often motivated by impure considerations (e.g., racism, a hatred of the poor, etc.) Outrages upon justice happen over here too, perhaps more often than we care to think about. I think there’s even some possibility that Amanda Knox would have been found guilty in a stateside trial, given her conflicting accounts and strange behavior following her roommate’s death. True, the prosecutor’s case theory probably would not have involved any satanic orgies, but in the end that doesn’t matter that much. And had Amanda been tried in her home state of Washington, she would have been subject to the death penalty (unlike in Italy, where the death penalty is not an option).
As I said, this is not a happy case at all. But I think it’s important to look past our anger and ask if we actually have a principled leg to stand on before we start taking diplomatic measures against Italy.
-Michael
Susan Simpson
Michael Williams