As the sensationalist trials of Amanda Knox come to a dramatic end in Italy, commentators are beginning to highlight the striking differences between the American and Italian legal systems. These differences meant that Knox's appeal played out as a fully new trial rather than an American-style bench review restricted largely to procedural challenges, allowing her to present new evidence of faulty DNA testing to a jury of fresh eyes. The Italian system also ensured that Knox received a sentence of 26 years for the sexual asault and murder of her roommate, a slap on the wrist by American standards. As other commentators have pointed out on Salon and in the New York Times, had Knox been falsely convicted in the United States, she could well have shared the fate of Troy Davis, who was executed in Georgia two weeks ago after a conviction based solely on the testimony of witnesses who have since recanted.
But now that Knox's trial is over, and American legal commentators are largely in agreement that a wrong has been righted, the focus should turn to the glaring failures of the American system that are exposed by what went right in Knox's case. First, we should look at the failures of our appellate system, which are undeniable in light of a case like Knox's (or any case where a defendant is found guilty in spite of a dearth of evidence.) Knox's fate hinged on her ability to show a new, unbiased jury that the DNA evidence upon which she and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito had been convicted was so flawed that it was thoroughly incredible. In contrast, a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts embeds in the American legal system the notion that defendants have no constitutional right to even test new DNA evidence that surfaces or becomes technologically available after a conviction. In fact, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented when the Supreme Court stepped in to order new DNA testing in the Troy Davis case, arguing that "[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." (As noted above, Davis was eventually executed anyway; there is no scientific test to determine the credibility of eyewitness testimony.)
In addition to scrutinizing our appellate system, which at least one Supreme Court justice believes does not guarantee the right of an innocent person to escape execution, Americans must have a conversation about the disproportionately long sentences meted out by our judicial system. The sentence lengths for almost all crimes, from drugs to murder, are unfathomable to most of the developed world. The United States incarcerates the highest percentage of its population of any country, and does so for such lengthy periods of time that states are beginning to open geriatric prisons focused on the health needs of the growing elderly prison population. But Knox's case is an excellent jumping off point in particular to highlight the sentences given to young people, even children. In Florida, prosecutors are attempting to charge 12-year-old Christian Fernandez as an adult for the murder of his 2-year-old brother, in spite of numerous factors in his case pointing to the need for leniency: the mother waited over six hours to bring her younger son to the hospital, and Christian's numerous behavior problems - including aggression toward his brother - did not stop his mother from leaving him alone with the younger boy . If convicted and sentenced to life, Christian could conceivably spend an astounding 90 years of his life behind bars. In 2010, the Supreme Court stepped in to bar states from handing out life sentences to juveniles for crimes other than murder; three justices, including Justice Scalia, dissented in full, and Chief Justice Roberts dissented in part. As a result of this ruling, over 100 children around the country were resentenced to shorter terms.
As Amanda Knox's appeal drew to a close, her alleged victim Meredith Kercher's family begged the media not to forget her. While there is no way to bring Kercher back to life, her memory can be honored by any justice done as a result of the steps - and grave missteps - taken to bring her killer to justice. The media should look beyond the Italian system, and beyond Amanda Knox herself, to put pressure on all legal systems to save innocent defendants and grieving families from the pain of a broken justice system. Regardless of differences of opinions regarding Knox's particular case, we can start by demanding justice right here at home.
No comments:
Post a Comment