A criminal trial can quickly become an international affair when picked up by the mainstream media. This is definitely the case with the now infamous Amanda Knox. An American studying in Italy and accused and later convicted of murdering her roommate, Knox became embroiled in a media frenzy. This story has been brought back to the forefront upon an appeal which exonerated Knox.
While Knox and her supporters are undoubtedly overjoyed with this decision, there are many who are left wanting. Mainly, the victim’s family. The press are constantly printing the name Amanda Knox but less often Miranda Kercher. Kercher’s sister, in a rare media appearance, worries that “her sister’s memory has been lost in the media circus surrounding the appeal.” Unfortunately this seems to be true.
But she is not the only one ignored in the mainstream press. Knox’s ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, convicted for Kercher’s murder along with Knox, was also exonerated as part of this appeal. However, he is not the sole focus of any article, in fact, he is barely even mentioned in most.
Touched upon even less seems to be the man who is still in prison for Kercher’s murder. There is little discussion as to whether justice was served for Kercher; was her murder actually solved? The debate is now whether justice has been served for Knox, who in the article was described by her supporters as “the victim of an incompetent and prejudice investigation.”
As with previous posts on this blog, this story brings to light issues with a highly regarded justice system. Whether one agrees with the original verdict or the appeal, some mistakes were made along the way. I do not wish to condemn all justice systems. I am a supporter of the process, I am just aware of the considerable opportunity for human error, but am still unable to envision a better system.
One glaring issue that I do see, though, is the way that the media can get involved in things like this. Media involvement is not always a bad thing. Sometimes the media does excellent work in calling attention to wrongdoings. If Knox is truly innocent and if the media attention is partially to thank for the support she had for an appeal, good on it. But the headlines and focus on the story now are not really helping anyone. Knox likely wants to try to get back to a normal life (if that will ever be possible) and Kercher’s family is still going to have to live with her death, and now with the fact that the justice system seemingly failed to properly look after her case.
One example of what I would deem as inappropriate media attention is the Lifetime movie of the original case and trial proceedings. Now with this new verdict, the film will be altered: "whenever the picture airs on the network, it will be accompanied by several sentences explaining the latest turn in the case, which will appear before and after the film.” This does not really change the fact that the film portrays Knox as guilty; but it is the fact that the film was even created in the first place that seems inappropriate to me.
It has been suggested that it is Knox’s “femaleness, her Americaness, her beauty – that was driving the case.” This is a frightening international society when this is the basis for a media frenzy when so many other injustices are ignored.
Many might say that the media was successful in calling attention to the injustice. I just wonder what the state of international affairs would be if there were less focus on scandalous characters and details; what issues would come to the forefront then?
-- Danielle Foster
Both the Amanda Knox and the Troy Davis cases highlight such bizarre aspects of the courts of law. There are several things that confuse me about the Knox story, one of which being if one person who confessed to the crime is already in prison, why is it necessary for another person to also be imprisoned based on such shaky evidence? Similar to the problem with the Troy Davis case: if people recant their testimonies, why is it still necessary to kill somebody?
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting aspect about these cases is the involvement of the families who want to see some sort of retribution to the killer of their loved one. I find it sick that the families of victim's receiving the lethal injection would want to see the person get killed. Losing a loved one is traumatic enough, but seeing somebody die in front of your eyes cannot be the best possible thing for one's mental health. These cases highlight the want of people to seek revenge, which to me is a very interesting aspect of human nature that I have not quite come to terms with.
- Ysabel
Ysabel, that is a very interesting way of thinking about things.
ReplyDeleteRecently I was at a talk by Peter Singer and when an audience member asked him about his opinion on the death penalty, he said he could possibly be persuaded to be for this form of punishment if he was shown solid proof that it was a strong detterant to other murderers.
However, this proof doesn't exist. Therefore, in my mind an interesting question arrises as to what is the actual purpose of the death penatly? Is it a form of retribution? Is it to make the families of the victim feel better?
I agree with you about how seeing another person killed cannot be a healthy thing, no matter what they have done. However, maybe if I were to experience a horrific trauma at the hands of another person, as Miranda Kercher's family did, for example, maybe my opinion would change.
- Danielle