Law & Order: Foreign Country Unit
Should American officials fight for the release of Americans convicted abroad?
A week and a half ago, Seattle native Amanda Knox was convicted in an Italian court of the November 2007 murder of her English roommate Meredith Kercher. Knox who was on study abroad from the University of Washington at the time, originally confessed, but later recanted, claiming her confession was made under duress and police abuse. Her conviction caused outcry in United States and elsewhere, with Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, saying she has “serious questions about the Italian justice system” and even securing a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the case.
This all raises an interesting question: under what circumstances, if any, should American politicians and diplomats challenge the convictions of Americans convicted of crimes abroad?
One position is that the U.S. government should never spend political capital challenging the conviction of Americans abroad. Each country has a right to create and enforce its own laws, the argument would go, and anyone traveling within that country has a responsibility to understand and follow its laws, just as we would expect foreigners in the U.S. to follow our laws.
But for most, I imagine, it is possible to find at least some situations in which we would want the United States to intervene. There seem to be two criteria by which one would make such a determination: perceived guilt/innocence of the convicted and the morality of the law they are convicted of breaking.
The first is that invoked in the Amanda Knox case. Of course, it is presumptuous of armchair jurors in living rooms around the world to come to conclusions about the guilt or innocence of someone in a trial we are not part of. So instead, we generally consider the legitimacy of the trial to assess the convicted’s guilt or innocence. In the case of Amanda Knox, though she was convicted in a courtroom in a liberal democratic country, the legitimacy of the trial has been called into question. In fact, as Anna Momigliano writes in Foreign Policy, “the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy’s justice system” — and the results are not positive. Only 16% of Italians fully trust their own justice system, claiming that coerced confessions, dubious forensic work and low standards for the admissibility of evidence are all too common.
When the illegitimacy of the trial throws the person’s guilt into question, it may be acceptable for a country’s leaders to challenge the conviction of their compatriot abroad. But this will inevitably be a difficult task, for no country is going to admit the illegitimacy of its courts. As the Foreign Policy article notes, in response to the outcry following Knox’s conviction, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who himself is facing three corruption charges in court, “ironically defend[ed] the courts he so often accuses of activism against him.”
The second criterion is the morality of the law the individual is convicted of breaking. In many cases, the laws justification will be clear: most everyone can agree that murder is wrong. So is rape and physical abuse. We would probably not want our leaders to advocate for an American legitimately convicted of such a crime abroad. But what about adultery? What about being in the company of the opposite sex? What about being gay? What about driving while female?
Around the world (and even in the U.S.) there are laws against things that most people (or at least most Americans) do not think should be illegal. Even if we go to a country knowing that it is, say, illegal to speak out against the government, we would probably find it morally wrong to hold back from speaking freely if we felt the desire to do so. And if we were to be convicted of such a crime, we would expect our leaders to fight for our release.
So, as is generally the case with public philosophy, it depends on the circumstances. As for Amanda Knox – since we can probably agree that a law against murder is justified, it all depends on whether you think her trial was legitimate. If readers and co-contributors want to raise funds for a fact finding trip to Tuscany – I’d be happy to investigate myself.
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user Seier used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Related posts:
- Foreign courts and government officials
- Releasing the terminally ill from prison
- No country for identity politics
- Kristof on foreign aid
- Religion and foreign aid
ShareComments
3 Responses to “Law & Order: Foreign Country Unit”
Leave a Reply
Another issue is the severity of the sentence.
[...] I discussed in depth whether American officials should fight the murder conviction in an Italian court of [...]
Why hasn’t Pope Benedict spoke out against this situation with those convicted wrongfully? Answer! Same as the Holocaust. They remain quiet when it serves their purpose. In this case the pope is showing American have no rights in that country and will never have any justice unless it submits to the Vaticans demands. President Barack Obama has not caved in like former president of the US have. One message from pontifics maxiu… And they cower. Yes the pope can dictate right now. And we can see Him helping on their usual way! Doing nothing! Not in the middle east, nor anywhere else that doesn’t fill their pockets! Don’t beleive me?? Ask one of the thousands of priest, ” why did the pope let this take place at his door step. The seven hills of Rome?!!?