Anything New York

Society

My thoughts on Trump’s travel and immigration ban

by on Feb.01, 2017, under Posts>Opinions>Politics>Immigration & Globalization>Immigration>Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism>Posts>Opinions>Politics>Terrorism

First of all, I agree with Dallas Mayor’s assessment that Trump’s travel ban could help radicalize extremists. Whether or not there is any good reason for Trump to order such a ban is not as important as it is how the ban will be seen by the world. I am sorry to have dismissed political correctness. Political correctness is not unimportant in this case.

As to Trump’s motivation for this ban, I can only speculate. There could be a few reasons for Trump to have come up with this ban. There could be an innocent reason for the US to stop accepting refugees from Syria. I was once a refugee. So I know something about how things work for refugees. When conflicts end in the country where they come from, refugees are supposed to go back to their country if they have not resettled in another country. Whether refugees from Syria should still be sent to other countries to resettle there depends on whether conflicts have ended in Syria. Trump probably does not want to think that there are still conflicts in Syria. In reality, conflicts do not usually end so quickly. If Russia is still supporting the Assad regime, conflicts will still be there. Even after all foreign forces have left Syria, there could still be a civil war there. There will be peace there eventually. But probably not right now.

That being said, a lot of people, including myself, feel that Trump’s ban is motivated more by some people’s fear of, or worse, hatred for, Muslims. This is because Trump got into power partly by making promises to people who fear or hate Muslims that he will protect them. When government policies are made out of fear or hatred, they can not be reasonable. Why do some people have to be inconvenienced and disrespected? Human rights are not just for the majority. They are for everyone. If Trump does not want to be misunderstood, he should offer as much explanation for his decision as possible. By simply saying because the US has the need of finding extremists, some people have to be inconvenienced and disrespected, Trump is showing disrespect for these people. I can therefore tell that disrespect is the most important reason for Trump to come up with the ban. Of course, trying to keep his campaign promises, and by extension, keep his job, is another reason.

By the way, if stopping extremists from entering the United States is the reason for the ban, I can not understand why Iran is on the list of countries whose citizens are to be banned. I can only think of Iran being the enemy of Israel as the reason for her to be included.

Leave a Comment more...

No real justice can ever be found in a murder case

by on Feb.09, 2014, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes

I have asked for justice for Meredith Kercher. That was meant to ask the American media and the US government to be impartial and not try to intervene in a judicial process.

Now that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been convicted again and they and their supporters are trying so hard to prove that there is no evidence to prove their involvement, I have realized that I have made a mistake.

Judicial systems can only convict perpetrators who have left evidence of their involvement. Therefore, no real justice for a murder can ever be found through a judicial system. Why?

In any judicial system, we have to find evidence of perpetrators’ involvement to prove their guilt. That means perpetrators who leave evidence of their involvement can be convicted while those who do not leave any evidence or succeed in cleaning up evidence of their involvement can not be convicted. That means murderers are convicted for their stupidity or inability to cover up or failure to cover up, not for their crime.

Therefore, it is very meaningless to argue over whether there is enough of evidence to prove their guilt or not. It is in fact even harmful to do so. It sends the message that you better cover up for your crimes or you will have to pay for your crimes.

 

Leave a Comment more...

Q&A on Amanda Knox’s Guilty Conviction

by on Feb.08, 2014, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes>Posts>Opinions>Religions

Q: How can some people be so sure of Amanda Knox’s guilt?

A: To be able to understand the logic of Amanda Knox’s conviction, it helps to have followed as many past murder cases as possible, and to have researched about this murder case as much as possible from information available in the news, on related websites, and in court documents. Information on how these past murder cases were investigated and their perpetrators convicted can shed light on why Amanda Knox could have become a suspect, been investigated, and been convicted: the murder of Lacy Peterson and the conviction of Scott Peterson (who is still running a website proclaiming his innocence), the murder of Jennifer Levin and the conviction of Robert Chambers (who has confessed and served his jail time for the crime), the murder of Natalee Holloway and the investigation of Joran van der Sloot (who has only been a suspect for the crime but has been convicted and jailed for another murder), the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman and the trial of O.J. Simpson (who has been acquitted but has always remained suspected of being guilty), the conviction of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo, etc.

[Amanda Knox reminded me of Robert Chambers the most. They both were good looking, both took drug, both were initially somewhat idolized by the media. In the Preppie Killer case, it was the victim’s mother who had to fight very hard for the victim’s rights. ]

I wonder if those who believe in Knox innocence has ever followed any case at all. Are they following only this case because the defendant is American while the victim and her family and the court are foreign?

A note on the controversies surrounding this case: As with most such difficult to solve murder cases, this case and the O.J. Simpson case both rely on a lot of guesswork and so are both refuted by the defendants. People have to rely on common sense and the evidence available to make a judgement. The reason why different people come up with different conclusion concerning the same case is that people choose to believe what can prove their points of view and ignore evidence to the contrary. In this case, it is getting harder also because of all the conflicting information being thrown around. Since some people can basically say whatever they want to say, other people don’t bother to look for evidence any more, just stick with what they already know before. And what people already know before is not all the same, due to the different reporting of the case by different media outlets.

Something I have noticed in the course of the persecution of this case is that while Americans did not have any problem with Scott Peterson’s conviction (which was based on much less evidence) when it was announced some years ago, a lot of them are having so much problem with Amanda Knox’s conviction now. I guess the standard of what evidence is good enough to get someone convicted has changed. Maybe it is because so many people have been wrongly convicted in America. The American justice system has been so screwed up that Americans do not have faith in a justice system any more.

Q: Is there any evidence?

A: Yes. Plenty of them if you look for them. Court documents are the best place to look for them. You can also find information on many websites about the case. But all websites have been seen as either pro-guilt or pro-Knox. So if you already have some ideas about the case, you may simply skip all the websites that prove you wrong. It is a human nature. For those who are convinced of Knox’s guilt, their judgement is made based on common sense and knowledge of the basic facts in the case. When people see someone giving different stories or lying repeatedly, they suspect the person’s involvement. When it is hard to explain things without the person of interest being involved, they become convinced of the person’s involvement.

In lots of difficult to solve murder cases, there is not a whole lot of evidence, the only other witness is dead. and the killer does not want to tell the truth. That is the reason why people get killed sometimes – to prevent the truth from being told. That is why we have to try our best to solve murder cases.

Something we also have to know about evidence is that once people have got an initial opinion, it is not easy to change it. Everything will either be explained in some way to serve as proof for an argument that has already been made, or be ignored. The argument over Knox’ guilt has become sort of a political fight between two parties. It has got personal and people are up in arms to defend their rights, not just what they believe to be true any more.

A problem that has made it harder for Americans to be convinced of Knox’s guilt is that the evidence in this case has been under-reported in the US. Those who read from British and Italian media about what had been told by the students, friends of Meredith, the neighbors, etc, and what had been discovered by the Italian police, from the beginning of the investigation, made up their mind about Amanda’s guilt back then. Americans got to know about the case from American media much later and much less. The purpose of the American media’s reporting of the case, from the get go, is to entice Americans to demand Italy set Amanda Knox free. British media’s reporting of the case, on the other hand, is just like American media’s reporting of any American case. The British and Italians made up their mind about this case from their media very much the same way Americans made up their mind about Scott Peterson’s guilt from what they learned from American media way before he was convicted.

Another problem that has made it difficult for some Americans to accept Knox’ conviction is that they have seen people suspected of having committed a murder walk free (OJ, Casey Anthony) while they have not noticed or have chosen to ignore those who have been convicted in the US with little evidence (Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson). A question that must be in these people’s mind is, if not all of those who look guilty are convicted, why Amanda Knox?

Q: What is the motive?

A: There are lots of murders with very simple motives or no motive at all. You may find it strange that someone would kill just for being very angry. But that does happen all the time. As to why Amanda Knox was so angry, that is not what we can answer. Some people can get very angry for very little things, especially when they are on drug.

Q: There is already one person in jail for the crime. Why do they have to convict two more people? Why is the Kercher family not happy with having one person serving jail time for the crime?

A: Just because one person has been found guilty of the crime does not mean that others can not be found guilty of the crime. It has been proven that Meredith was killed by more than one attackers. And the Kercher family know it.

Q: Is it better for Amanda Knox to go to jail?

A: Many killers live most of their remaining life as normal people (never kill again) until they are found at their old age. However, some killers do kill again. Joran van der Sloot came to mind.

Q: How Amanda Knox should have handled this?

A: Amanda Knox’s woes have made me realized how important it is to believe in God. Only when she believes in God can she handle the situation properly and is able to handle what is coming for the rest of her life. Any mistake, however big it is, can be forgiven by God. But she can never be forgiven by God or get help from God if she never turns to God and never starts to believe in God. God’s power is greater than that of all of her relatives and supporters. All the money in the world cannot buy the power that God has. There are more people who believe in God, consciously or unconsciously. That is why Knox’s conviction is reinstated. If Knox believed in God and did the right thing, she would not have to pay such a high price. In fact, at any point in time, if she turns to God, she will get help. It is regretful for her that she never does seem to get that. She always tries to be in control of the situation. She would not let God handle it. She went on TV to lie to the whole world repeatedly, as if she is powerful enough to control the world. This will only turn the world against her.

———-

My last word: Murderers don’t always get anything out of the murders they have committed. In fact, sometimes all they get is regret and shame. In that sense, they are victims, too – victims of their own inability to control themselves. We should not ask for justice. We should just try to help them become normal people if that is possible.

Leave a Comment more...

关于为什么要抗议 ABC 和 Jimmy Kimmel

by on Nov.17, 2013, under Posts>Opinions>Politics>World Affairs>China>Posts>Opinions>Ethics>Human Decency>Posts>Opinions>Society>Racism

要维护中国人的尊严,坚持到底,誓不罢休

我知道英文原文的意思是“在中国的所有人”,不是“中国人”。但是对中国的蔑视会转化为对中国人的蔑视。而对中国人的蔑视会使得中国人成为施暴的对象。美国已经出现过很多对亚洲人施暴和凶杀亚洲人的案件,而且很多时候行凶者逍遥法外或者没有得到应得的惩罚。这样的节目只会使得这种状态变得更为严重。

说实在的,停止播放那个节目主要是为了美国人,尤其是美国小孩。因为那样随便地谈及杀人的事对观众会产生不良影响。受害的将会是美国人和美国华人。要不要打中国可不是他们的节目能够决定的。谁也不会把那个节目当一回事儿。美国华人对此事敏感是因为这种对华人的轻蔑态度已经致使很多华人受害。

我还是没有在美国媒体中发现有关美国白宫表态的新闻的报道。我只在美国媒体中看到很多文章抱怨华人抗议得太多或者根本就不应该抗议。这说明美国人对中国人的态度还是没有改变,还是不尊重中国人。他们对中国人的轻蔑是如此地根深蒂固,他们怎么也看不到那个节目有什么错误。

解雇是不够的。告他们才行。现在美国媒体中已经出现了很多为他们辩护的文章。那说明对中国人的歧视在美国是如此司空见惯以至于大多数人都意识不到他们的错误在哪里。那是很危险的。不光是对美国华人是危险的,对中国也是危险的。一定要告出个结果来,让他们知道中国人是不可以被歧视的。

你们还是必须告 ABC 和 Jimmy Kimmel。Jimmy Kimmel 说他不怕被告。那就告他,让他和像他那样的人知道向大众宣扬种族灭绝是要付出代价的。不要怕国内的人说什么。你们有权利确保你们的安全。与美国同胞搞好关系不等于说不讲原则。美国人知道做人有些什么规矩,只是以为在对待中国人时不必守那些规矩。

ABC 的很多主持人是维护上层社会(白人阶层)的、很有偏见的。求他们是没有用的,只会让他们看不起。对待 ABC 这种公司,美国人的一贯做法是来硬的:抵制在他们的节目上做广告的公司,使得他们的节目难以拉得到广告赞助。

何况那言论是直接针对中国的。中国政府要做出反应才是的。总不能只当没听到吧。是小孩先说的,但是接着大人跟着起哄,然后还有组织地播放给大众看。

但是他们的媒体也可以选择报道还是不报道那些游行。星期六的全国二十多个城市的抗议活动在美国主流媒体中几乎没有报道,至少用他们的最大的两个新闻搜索引擎找不到。他们的媒体怕民众抗议所报道的事件是民众没有兴趣或者感到反感的。

不达到目的绝不罢休。主宰这个世界的人就是这样的人。还没有达到目的就罢休的人是要被人主宰的。

 

抗议活动不违法,且有助于促进社会进步,不伤害中国人的利益

人们不是要遵守法律吗?法律允许他们干什么就干什么。持你这种观点的人是不是都以为游行在美国也是违法的或者是扰乱社会秩序的?游行在美国是很常见的,也不遭遇那么多敌意。美国人不喜欢的是中国人居然敢不接受侮辱,竟然要抗议,而且坚持要正式道歉。

能够在哪里发展就在哪里发展。并不是爱国的人回国来就能做出更多的贡献。如果没有华人在国外与其他国家的民众沟通,中国与其他国家之间的互相了解就更少了。

你为什么那么歇斯底里地要对他们的活动表示否定呢?你对他们的生活没有亲身体会,也没有理由或权利阻止他们。

你说的也不是没有道理。不过,华人被侮辱就是因为美国人知道,按照你的逻辑,侮辱华人可以驱使他们离开。这种侮辱在历史上确实曾经使得很多东方人回到自己的国家去建设自己的国家。但是说实在的,中国并不那么缺乏人才。他们回来了也不一定能施展才华。中国的环境是难以适应的,难以在其中求得发展的。

再好的地方也还是有需要改进的地方的。你说话怎么那么像美国的一些没文化的人说的。如果没有过这类抗议活动,美国能有今天吗?美国黑人能有选举权吗?你太缺乏历史知识了。美国华人的这次运动是要为美国的进步做贡献的,是要被写入美国历史的。华人在美国何时开始懂得为维护自己的尊严而斗争?现在!

我知道为什么一些美国人认为外国人不应该在美国得到比在他们自己的国家可以得到的更多。那是因为他们不想要外国人爱上美国而不离开,或者他们不想让在美国的外国人得到更多的权利。这是世界上所有居住在自己的国度里的人共同具有的排外心里在作怪。

我在美国的时候没见过谁拿钱去参加游行的。参加这种活动用得着给钱才去吗?又不是什么体力劳动。如果有什么组织要捐款救助同乡,那是另一回事了。

在哪里受歧视都不好。我也知道在自己的国家受歧视不好。不过能在哪里争取得到更多的尊严就要在哪里争取。既然在国内那么不容易争取,而在美国有希望可以争取,为什么不在美国争取呢?仅仅是因为中国人在国内不受尊重,中国人在国外也不应该受尊重吗?那是一些美国人的错误观点。

那你就完全不了解美国社会了!美国人只尊重懂得并敢于为自己的权利和尊严而斗争的人。他们最看不起的是你这种苟且偷生的人了。你要是怕惹祸,在家呆着就行了,让那些敢作敢为的人为你的权利和尊严而斗争不是挺好的吗?

你们是不是不想得罪美国人,在想尽办法不让事情闹大?美国人自己都不在乎,你们为什么那么歇斯底里?这种抗议在美国不是很常见的吗?黑人和犹太人不就是这样不断抗议来维护他们的权利和自尊的吗?中国人难道要为了不得罪美国人而甘愿永远受歧视吗?你们这才是见利忘义呢!

这里有范过错误是这里要解决的事。那里正在范的错误能够立刻纠正就立刻纠正,为什么要等这里的错误得到纠正以后才能纠正那里的错误?

我看参加这些抗议活动的人不像是福建去打工的那种。

人家在他们所居住的国家举行那个国家的法律允许他们举行的活动,你为什么要反对呢?不可以游行的时候不游行,可以游行的时候游行。这有什么不正常的?

我也注意到那些 signs 看起来很好看,不像是 home made 的。但是近年来在美国的很多游行,包括美国人的,都是这样的。游行组织者向社会募捐(这里可能是向华人社区募捐),然后用捐款买 signs 发给大家。大使馆有没有提供帮助,华人团体应该也都可以组织得起来。这种抗议活动在美国很常见。

我在美国碰到的中国人都是普通中国公民。我没有碰到过哪个是家里当官的。都是打工的。你们没出过国的人是不是有点儿嫉妒那些在国外的啊?能出国的人好多是自己经过一番努力才能出国的,出去以后却又要努力为中国维护尊严,因为外国人只看到他们是中国人,中国的荣与辱都是他们的。

他们骂的是中国,但是一旦那谩骂引发出行动,那行动的对象就是美国华人和中国老百姓(如果战争真的爆发的话)。他们可不知道哪个是我们当中当官的,就是知道也不会为我们做好事,只帮我们去除贪官污吏,对我们手下留情。再说,当官的往往是逃得最快的。我看你是在为你的经济利益担心,怕得罪美国人吧?

我看中国不敢吭声是因为怕美国人来个抵制中国货的运动。美国可能是很多中国货的最大市场,没有了那个市场中国经济是要受冲击的。这是依赖于美国市场来发展经济的结果。如果中国货的最大市场是中国,中国就不怕得罪谁了。美国华人与中国经济的联系不那么密切,所以没有这个顾虑。

但是节目是在美国播放的,美国华人是那个节目的观众。如果有人对着你骂你的娘,你不觉得受侮辱吗?你还说骂的是我的娘,跟我没关系吗?ABC 侮辱的很显然是美国华人嘛。再说,美国华人抗议与否是他们的事,你有什么权利干涉?

我估计认为我们不应该抗议的人也是在国内欺负本国同胞的人。他们崇尚金钱与权势。

 

抗议活动与宗教信仰没有冲突

你如果是真基督徒的话应该知道宣扬种族灭绝是有多么地违背上帝的意旨的。在美国,基督徒,包括牧师,参加游行示威是常有的事。美国的民权运动都是有教会的积极参与的。马丁·路德·金,美国历史上最有名的民权运动领袖,就是一个牧师。

 

要克服中国人自身的种族歧视

我说的只是 ABC,不是整个美国。美国有很多为正义而斗争的人。只是美国的普通民众一向就看不起亚洲人因为亚洲人人少且不团结,明哲保身且很能忍声吞气,不像其他人种那样团结且好斗。其实中国国内也有两类人,一类爱欺负人,一类总会受人欺负。

黑人奴隶出身的其实更懂道理些。你这样说话说明你也有偏见,也像那些美国人一样有种族歧视。你这是100步笑一百步(不是50步笑一百步)。像你这样的人是没有资格批评美国人的。

有些美国黑人歧视中国人,就像有些中国人歧视黑人一样。同样是被白人歧视的黑人和中国人为什么要互相歧视呢?我看歧视是人类社会共有的毛病。就是中国人内部也互相歧视。我也不知道为什么。

 

要搞好与其他种族的关系

不要光想着挣钱,多交结其他种族的朋友,争取减少与当地人的差异与隔阂。

你如果真正关心海外华人的权益,就要帮助华人融入当地社会。华人不应该形成一个社会中的小社会,因为那样不容易去除当地人对华人的成见,而且更容易使得当地人对华人产生误解。华人也不应该只以财富来衡量人的价值。被你们看不起的人会对你们产生敌意的。

你们在美国的华人也应该多关心美国同胞,不要只顾得赚钱和维护自己的经济利益。好多美国华人连英语都不屑去学,怎么跟美国同胞沟通?美国人变穷了就会像其他任何国家的穷人一样要找富人算账的。

 

要发展中国国内市场来提高中国人的地位

中国以这么大的人口要依赖于美国来发展经济是不现实的。这可能是问题所在。中国如果不想让人看不起、不想被侮辱,就要转而依赖本国市场来发展经济,承担起带动全球经济复苏的重任。

种族歧视问题之外还有个问题要讨论。我不明白中国为什么那么喜欢买美国债券。美国的偿还能力不是无穷的。工作都转移到他国去了,美国哪里来的收入来还债?另外,中国有那么大的国内市场,为什么要靠外国市场来发展经济?中国就为国内市场生产,国内消费剩余的那部分再卖到国外市场去也行。

也应该意识到,买太多他们的债券会让他们觉得他们要受控于我们。从一个最强大的国家变成一个要受制于人的国家,在心理上是难以接受的。穷极必反。我们还是要着重于开发国内市场,不要单靠出口发展经济。

Leave a Comment more...

New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg is ridiculous

by on Jan.09, 2010, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes

Commenting on the recent Newark airport incident, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg said “It wasn’t some prank that didn’t do any harm – it did a lot of harm because it sent out an alert that people can get away with something like this”.

So is it a good thing or a bad thing that this vulnerability in airport security has been made known to the public?

Whenever a problem is disclosed, it is not the person who makes the problem known who is at fault. It is those who allow such a problem to exist who are at fault.

A problem is itself a problem. It is not created by someone who makes it known to the public. We should be thankful that it is made known to the public and thus will be fixed.

Imagine that it was someone else who got through security that way and blew up a plane, will we even get a chance to fine him and scream at him?

Anyway, the guy in this incident could not have been able to bypass security if he had needed to board a plane. He would have had to go through security like others who had to do it twice. So what are we to worry about? It only send people who may want to copy it a message that they won’t be able to bypass airport security and will be caught later on. Isn’t it a good thing?

I guess the senator is worrying that there will be more work for people in charge of airport security. But they should have worked harder to prevent this from happening anyway. Just because nobody knew about a problem does not mean that it did not exist.

Below is a comment posted on nj.com that I think expresses the same view that I have.

“The airport’s intent is to prevent the destruction of the airport and the loss of countless lives, and they erect a cloth tape barrier manned by a single officer who may or may not be at his post, with a broken CCTV system that is not even watched in real time. A customer sees this “security” setup, which is similar to CROWD CONTROL at the local cine-plex theater, and knowingly goes around it to be with a loved one. He didn’t understand that the airport put the tape there to stop the total destruction of that facility. So don’t punish him as if he meant to destroy the airport. He didn’t.”

Leave a Comment more...

The Government’s Abuse of the Parents of “Balloon Boy”

by on Dec.24, 2009, under Posts>Opinions>Politics>Civil Rights>Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes>Posts>Opinions>Politics>Ethics

Just because someone has done something wrong or committed a crime does not mean that that person can be abused. But that is what happens a lot of time. People often disrespect someone who has been condemned for some reason, even if it is not a very serious reason. And once they disrespect someone, they abuse them.

“Balloon Boy” parents Richard and Mayumi Heene should pay for the government’s financial losses resulting from their hoax. But they should be allowed to make money to pay for it even if it means that they have to write a book or offer TV interviews about their hoax. Some people may want to know why they did what they did and what their experience was. They may profit from something that has caused harm to other people. But they are going to pay for all the harm they did to other people.

By the way, some people think that Richard and Mayumi Heene abuse their children. I don’t see any of that. One, they did not instruct their children to lie. That was why the boy told the truth and we got to know the truth. Two, they did not jeopardize their children’s safety by really letting the boy trapped in the balloon to make it real. Three, they let them explore nature to learn more about nature and technologies. I would love to have that kind of opportunities growing up. I don’t understand why people accused them of abusing their children.

Leave a Comment more...

Differences between the American legal system and the Italian legal system

by on Dec.10, 2009, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes

The following about the differences between the American legal system and the Italian legal system is taken from the article “`Foxy Knoxy`: Innocent coed or manipulative murderer?” by Wendy Murphy, a law professor, a famous victims rights advocate and television legal analyst, and an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. I have seen her on TV a lot. I admire her courage to express her own opinion which is not the same as those of most people in mainstream media. Unfortunately, this article is not yet published on well-known news sites, only on the websites of a few little known local newspapers in Massachusetts such as The Daily News Tribune. Politics trumps the pursue of the truth and justice in America as much as it does in the developing world.

“The Italian legal system is indeed different than the American system, but it isn’t necessarily worse. We think we have the “best legal system in the world” but we really don’t – though there are features of our system that are truly superior – like the right to remain silent, and the exclusionary rule that forbids use of evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional rights. The Italian legal system has similar kinds of rules to ensure the fairness of the process, but they’re not as generous.

Nevertheless, the Italian system is more likely to reach a “just” verdict if “justice” means getting at the truth.

This is because the Italian legal system is inquisitorial – which means it’s designed to uncover facts. The American legal system is adversarial – which means it’s designed to pit adversaries against each other for the purpose of producing a winner.

Adversarial legal systems inspire an “anything goes” attitude that can lead to shenanigans that distort rather than elucidate the truth. Think O.J. Simpson.

Inquisitorial systems don’t tolerate tricks. They’re designed to prevent red herring strategies precisely because they distort the truth. This is one of the reasons Italian juries are comprised of a combination of “regular” people and judges. The professional training and expertise of judges brings objectivity and less human bias (and vulnerability to strategic manipulation) to the decision-making process.

In short, – the Italian system couldn’t care less about exactly the thing that makes many Americans so upset about the verdict.”

Leave a Comment more...

Reactions to the Amanda Knox verdict

by on Dec.08, 2009, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes

Knox’s supporters are waging a campaign to discredit the Italian judicial system, while some of those who are convinced that Knox is guilty can not stand the fact that Knox’s parents are trying so hard to get Knox off the hook.

I personally believe that Knox is guilty. But I can understand why her parents are doing what they are doing, although they look rather selfish if they know that their daughter is guilty. Some people commit crime and regret what they did. But they do not like to have to answer to people who they have not hurt. They believe that what they did should be judged by God and no one else. They are not proud of what they did. But they believe it is no one else’s business to judge them. It is a Christian’s believe that only those who never sin can cast the first stone. And since virtually no one can claim they never sin, no one can cast the first stone. So no one can judge others.

I personally do not think that punishing a person or even killing him or her can bring back anything. Meridith will not come back to life even if Knox is sentenced to death. And if Meridith had survived, she might not want to revenge so much. So looking for vengeance should not be our motive to keep Knox behind bar.

I think that Knox should serve her sentence for a different reason. It is to satisfy people’s desire for justice, which is different from the desire for vengeance. It is also to prevent people from coming up with the conclusion that they can commit a crime and can get away with it if they know how to wage a PR campaign and enlist the help of politicians.

By the way, isn’t it the greatest thing about the developed world that the judicial system is independent from the government and any other political system so that no political pressure can alter judicial outcomes? Why are they trying to enlist the help of politicians?

For those who doubt the fairness of the Italian judicial system, please study how Americans such as Scott Peterson got convicted here in the US. There have been so many cases that have been subjects of national debates over the years. If you are interested in how people can be convicted fairly, study those cases.

This murder case does not have a confession. But it is like some other murder cases here in the US that have got guilty verdicts without a confession. Of course, you can point out that not all murder cases without a confession got guilty verdicts. But that does not mean that no murder cases without a confession can get a guilty verdict.

Also, I wonder if some people are worried that Knox got convicted because of what the US government has been doing to people in other countries and people from other countries. They know that what the US government has been doing is not popular internationally. So they worry that Americans will have to pay a price for it.

I don’t think that people in other countries want American citizens to pay for what the US government has been doing. They probably know that Americans have as little control over what the US government does as they have over what their governments do.

Also, are some Americans worried that American image would be tainted if Knox is convicted? I don’t see how you can save American image by denying something others are so convinced of. To really improve American image, we need to make it clear to Americans that they can not expect to be acquitted of crimes they commit abroad and so don’t commit crimes while they are abroad. By trying to get them off the hook, we are not discouraging them from committing crimes while they are abroad. More crimes and more cover-ups will taint American image even further.

Leave a Comment more...

Men and women must be equal in guilt

by on Dec.07, 2009, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes

“Friday’s verdict, delivered in a court in Perugia, has dominated the media, with much emphasis on the contrast between her wholesome, sporty image and the grim sentence. But I wonder how differently we would feel if we tried the following experiment: what if it had been a man standing in the dock, declared guilty of sexually assaulting Meredith Kercher, stabbing her to death and abandoning her partly clothed body in a pool of blood? In fact, it need not be an experiment – Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s former lover, and Rudy Guede have also been convicted, prompting barely a whisper compared to the furore over Knox.” – from “Amanda Knox: whatever sympathy we feel, a girl is still dead“.

Leave a Comment more...

Was Amanda Knox convicted just for being an American?

by on Dec.04, 2009, under Posts>Opinions>Society>Crimes>Posts>Opinions>Politics>World Affairs

I guess a lot of Americans think so. Even a US senator from her state vowed to ask the Secretary of State to help her out. (Unfortunately for the senator, Hillary does not need Knox’s supporters’ votes as the senator does.)

Judging from how Americans have been convicted in the US, I think if this case happened in the US, I don’t think Americans would have much difficulty reaching the same verdict that the Italians have reached. Only because this case is a case in which an American was convicted in a foreign country that so many Americans are scrutinizing it. Americans are afraid of getting wrongly convicted just for being Americans. Therefore so many Americans are screaming for justice even when facing a daunting task of proving Knox’s innocence.

If you are concerned that you could face the fate Knox is facing, ask yourself if you are anything like Knox. If you are, then you should be concerned. Anyone who lives a life like hers should be concerned. If you are not, relax. Knox was not convicted for being an American.

I think the American media’s selective reporting of information concerning the case explains why there is a big gap between the conclusions made by Americans and those made by the Europeans, and explains why Americans are so all fired up.

Armed with more information about the case than the American public, Europeans strongly believe in their judgement in the case. Americans’ effort to defend Knox will not raise Europeans’ doubt in their own judgement, but will raise their doubt in Americans’ judgement and possibly in their characters as well.

I think the American media have been trying to make the story to be not just about a wild American girl, but about an American girl, which many more Americans can relate to. They do that to get a lot more Americans interested in the case and thus raise their ratings. But by doing that, they are misleading the American public.

There is also another issue. Some Americans think that they do not need to respect the laws in other countries. And Europeans think that they have to make it clear that Americans have to respect the laws in their countries. Thus the crash.

Silly as it may seem, things like this can sometimes lead to wars. It would be interesting if America goes to war with Europe. But I won’t bet on it. There are still people who are cool headed enough to stop that from happening. This is because a war between two world powers will surely cost too much, not like a war between a world power and a little poor country like Afghanistan.

Leave a Comment more...

WordPress