# Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent victims of a rush to judgment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474 "2009-10-12T01:39:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 155
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/155 "2009-12-08T13:05:21Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And I think it’s fundamentally unfair that a government could continue prosecuting and re-prosecuting someone who a jury has already found innocent. Look at this this way: you’re accused of a crime and you didn’t do it, and you believe you can prove it, but you’re not positive. You’ve got enough money for a lawyer but you’re not rich. The public is not going to love you as a defendant. But you only need to convince one court you’re not guilty. Are there any countries that allow either side unlimited appeals, never mind giving the Government unlimited appeals? You seem to be arguing against something that nobody has offered support for. Quite simply, thinking that both sides should have the right to appeal if one side has the right to appeal is NOT the same thing as offering unlimited appeals, no matter how much you pretend it is. Your argument has a simple converse: You’re accused of a crime and you did do it and you believe you can offer “good enough” evidence to get off, but you’re not positive. You’ve got loads of money and the public is going to love you as a defendant. You only need to convince one court you’re not guilty. Sounds remarkably like OJ’s case to me. > [@All Gay Freedom Airways](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-gay-freedom-airways/4012/29): > > Now consider the same situation, except even if you convince a jury, the government can appeal the verdict. And if that appeal doesn’t work, they can appeal again. And again. And they can get you thrown in jail by convincing any of those courts that you did it. You have to convince all the courts that you’re innocent. How do you feel about your chances now? Think it would affect your decision on how to plead? Again, nobody is arguing for unlimited appeals. My understanding - and I could well be wrong here - is that an appeal goes to the next highest level. Usually this is a court of appeals. After that comes, often, a supreme court. In Europe there is also the European Court. However in the end you will eventually run out of places to appeal to. Again, is there _anywhere_ that offers unlimited appeals? > [@All Gay Freedom Airways](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-gay-freedom-airways/4012/29): > > I’ve never been tried for murder in Italy, fortunately. But that sounds a lot less fair than allowing citizens (the ones who get thrown in jail) to appeal and giving the government (which employs the prosecutors and the police, makes the laws, and collects the taxes) only one shot. A lot less fair seeing as it is a process that, as far as I am aware, doesn’t exist anywhere (although I am open to being shown to be incorrect there). --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474)._