![]() In Part One, I use the conceit of a “What Not To Do” list to highlight the role played by Amanda’s “strangeness” in bringing about her arrest and two convictions. In this Article, I explore the Amanda Knox case in the context of our defective ability to judge. Rather, it is emblematic of broader themes and a broader problem−that of human beings’ prejudice against “strangeness” and our desperation for a hasty assessment of guilt or innocence‒qualities that can bleed into a legal system to the detriment of the quest for truth. While the Amanda Knox case has been remarkable for its ability to fascinate an international audience, it is not altogether unique. Interest in the case spiked again with the release of a Netflix original documentary, Amanda Knox, in the fall of 2016. Throughout its eight-year duration, the case garnered worldwide attention, in part because of the pretty, photogenic defendant and the drug-fueled sex game that the prosecutor adduced as the motive for the crime. Retried in absentia, she was convicted again, only to be exonerated by the Italiaan Supreme Court, which handed down its final opinion in September, 2015. ![]() One of the most widely publicized cases of our time is that of Amanda Knox, the college student from West Seattle who was convicted of murdering her British roommate in Italy and served four years in prison before being acquitted and released. Click here for a PDF of the entire article ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |