The recent Kercher verdict, and case

[onona]

How many of you guys have been following this case? It's been in the news a lot recently, and the verdict was delivered a few days ago. For those who don't know, it was a murder case in Italy, for a young British student was murdered - you can read about it here. In short, here's the summary:

Meredith Kercher was a 21-year-old British student who was part of a university exchange programme to Italy. On 2 November 2007, her body was discovered by Italian police at the house that she shared with other students in Perugia, when tracing mobile phones discovered in a nearby garden. She was found lying partially clothed under a duvet in her locked bedroom, her windpipe crushed and her throat partially slashed.

On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Patrick Diya Lumumba, Congolese owner of a local bar; Amanda Knox, an American student; and Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student (2-week boyfriend of Knox). Lumumba was later released and exonerated.

An arrest warrant was issued against Rudy Hermann Gu?d?, an Ivorian long-term resident of Perugia, based on DNA and fingerprint evidence found on the victim's body. On 20 November 2007 he was arrested in Germany, and on 6 December extradited to Italy. The three suspects were held in custody in Perugia and were charged with murder, sexual assault and theft.

Three people were accused of the murder, and now all three have been sentenced to jail. But for the duration of the trial, the majority of press coverage and focus has been on Amanda Knox, a young female American student.

Now, what I find really appalling is the way that this woman has been portrayed in the press. More specifically, the way her sexuality has been constantly used as a means of discrediting her. I've read so many articles now, in newspapers and on news websites, which go on about the fact that she's had multiple lovers and owned a vibrator, and how apparently, this makes her a person with "loose morals". I have a huge problem with this. If a man is arrested for a murder, the number of people he's screwed and the fact that he may keep lotion or other masturbation aids around his home are NEVER mentioned. So why has this constantly come up in the case of Knox? Why is a woman's sexuality used to demonise her?

The case didn't have a whole lot of hard evidence, and frankly I find the entire thing really disturbing. I can't shake the feeling that this woman was convicted as a result of this smear campaign against her, especially in a country like Italy, which still has a lot of male chauvinism. Many news articles describe Knox as "having the face of an angel, and the eyes of a killer" - how is this sort of language going to ensure a fair trial and a fair view in the public eye here?

I remember a while back there was a thread here where the issue of trial by jury came up, and someone, I think it may have been Octavianus or MarryO+LewyG, said something to the effect that verdicts being decided by people who have no idea about the procedures of criminal law are a really bad idea, which is something I'd never really given much thought to before, but I now tend to agree with. This entire case really demonstrates this. When people are judging a woman's character by her sexuality, and using such emotionally-charged crap like "killer's eyes", how can we expect a fair verdict? Especially when they have so little evidence to go on in the trial. And why is it still so unacceptable in society for a woman to be so sexually independent and adventurous? Why are we still dealing with that stupid old guys-that-sleep-around-are-studs-but-girls-who-sleep-around-are-sluts crap in this day and age? The association of sexuality and morality is a religious one, and should NOT be used in a court of law.

[Gambit]

Quite simple really, it's just because this kind of thing is so uncommon for a female to be involved in.. murder that is not the 'sexually independent and adventurous' bit, as you put it. People might find it easy to understand why a male might be involved in a case like this but not as easily a female. So they dig around and find something 'wrong' or reasons for her to do what she supposedly did.

In my opinion guys and girls who sleep around with no discord are 'sluts' but that's another topic entirely.

[onona]

In my opinion guys and girls who sleep around with no discord are 'sluts' but that's another topic entirely.

Why is it bad for people to engage in sex with many partners? Male, or female. What's the problem? Do you agree with the news sites, in that having numerous sexual partners indicates low morals? If so, why? Why do you link sexual activity with morality? This is what I am curious to hear.

If you were a member of the jury, would you have considered her sexual behaviour when deciding on your verdict? If so, why?

[Gambit]

Why is it bad for people to engage in sex with many partners? Male, or female. What's the problem? Do you agree with the news sites, in that having numerous sexual partners indicates low morals? If so, why? Why do you link sexual activity with morality? This is what I am curious to hear.

If you were a member of the jury, would you have considered her sexual behaviour when deciding on your verdict? If so, why?

Firstly no, I would not take that into account if I were on the jury. The mere fact that someone has many sexual partners does not in my opinion increase there tendency to commit murder... unless there was some weird love triangle thing going on.

As for the first question, you should take two key words I used into context 'no discord'. And secondly I do not base that statement on the main topic of this thread, this is more in general and thirdly this is my opinion that I will share, which means I don't want to force it down anybody's throat it is just my opinion..

The problem for me around this subject is the emotions that get involved... which in my opinion they always will.. if you are honestly able to tell me you or anybody else could sleep with multiple partners and not have any emotional bond with any of them, I will eat my watch, when emotions get involved you simply cannot have multiple partners... for long. I am not basing this on personal experience but this is just how I see things. Next a definition of morals state:

In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.

Now firstly I am not a very religious person but I would agree that growing up in a religious household did shape my views on morality.

To summarize it all up based on my 'code of conduct' I would not be able to live with myself or be content as a human being if I had many sexual relationships, I would fall in love or destroy myself or both...

Let me ponder more on this I don't think I am quite done on this topic..

[Cleric]

@ononaL And that right there is the interesting question. Does sleeping around mean a girl has low moral character? No. But does your average girl with low moral character sleep around (junkies/addicts/etc)? Chances are yes. Often symptom get's confused with illness (yes it's a clumsy way to put it, but you know what I mean).

Just because someone who fell has a sore knee, doesn't mean someone with a sore knee fell. (still clumsy, damn it, brain not working)

EDIT: Mod note - This is a potentially very controversial topic. Let's all respect each other and play nicely. We may just learn something out of it. Religion may play a part in morals, but let's keep it to a bare minimum in this thread if possible. Really want some constructive discussion here. Trolls/spam/retards will get infractions and have their posts deleted.

[Octavianus]

Pssssst, Cleric.

Inductive reasoning.

[Cleric]

Why thank you good sir. As you were.

[onona]

As for the first question, you should take two key words I used into context 'no discord'.

Could you explain then what you meant by that? Because I can't quite figure out what you mean by that, actually. What with discord being arguments or strife of some kind, I'm not sure why you've written that "sleeping around without discord makes you a slut", because it doesn't really make sense. Maybe you meant another word? Or do you mean people who sleep around purely out of pleasure and not because they've got emotional problems that may cause promiscuity?

The problem for me around this subject is the emotions that get involved... which in my opinion they always will.. if you are honestly able to tell me you or anybody else could sleep with multiple partners and not have any emotional bond with any of them, I will eat my watch

Then you'd better prepare yourself for a snack because people CAN and DO have sex that's purely physical. Because sex is a physical act. All the emotional stuff that goes with it is not biological, it's a result of social and cultural conditioning, to which many people are actually quite immune. There are many, many people who enjoy sex purely for what it is - a physical act that's physically pleasurable. We've actually had threads about this in the past.

Now firstly I am not a very religious person but I would agree that growing up in a religious household did shape my views on morality.

This is very likely. And it's worth forcing yourself to think outside that box for the sake of seeing things from another perspective. At the end of the day, it's cool if you want to live your life according to this, because it's not really going to affect anyone else, and you'll find a lot of people who have the same outlook as you, so bonus there. But it's worth bearing in mind that others will have a different view, and you shouldn't necessarily think less of them because of that. They're simply different to you.

To summarize it all up based on my 'code of conduct' I would not be able to live with myself or be content as a human being if I had many sexual relationships, I would fall in love or destroy myself or both...

And again, that's you. You shouldn't necessarily apply the rules, by which you live your own life, to others. If two consenting partners are totally happy with casual sex, there is no harm done. Obviously there are many people who get hurt in situations like this, but ultimately people choose their paths and if they end up getting hurt, then they kinda have themselves to blame. This is why people need to communicate honestly to one another about this kind of thing.

[Gambit]

@ononaL And that right there is the interesting question. Does sleeping around mean a girl has low moral character? No. But does your average girl with low moral character sleep around (junkies/addicts/etc)? Chances are yes. Often symptom get's confused with illness (yes it's a clumsy way to put it, but you know what I mean).

Just because someone who fell has a sore knee, doesn't mean someone with a sore knee fell. (still clumsy, damn it, brain not working)

EDIT: Mod note - This is a potentially very controversial topic. Let's all respect each other and play nicely. We may just learn something out of it. Religion may play a part in morals, but let's keep it to a bare minimum in this thread if possible. Really want some constructive discussion here. Trolls/spam/retards will get infractions and have their posts deleted.

I agree completely with that statement, you should just include a /guy next to 'girl' because that obviously also goes both ways.

[Demikid]

Why is everyone so worried about her lifestyle simple it makes for interesting news why else would it be in the papers , only when a case is interesting does it ever reach the news

[onona]

@ononaL And that right there is the interesting question. Does sleeping around mean a girl has low moral character? No. But does your average girl with low moral character sleep around (junkies/addicts/etc)? Chances are yes.

Frankly, I wouldn't necessarily label junkies as having a low moral character. While I don't subscribe wholly to the notion of junkies being victims, since they did, after all, CHOOSE to start taking drugs, I think that what a person chooses to do to themselves doesn't necessarily make them a bad person, or a person of low moral fibre. It just makes them f@cked up. Junkies also often prostitute themselves in order to make money to feed their habit, so the sex is really just a means to an end.

However, it is true that often people with a low self esteem tend to sleep around, but there are quite specific reasons for this, especially the fact that sex can make people feel empowered or approved of, and since people with self esteem issues may be seeking approval or some from of assurance from others, sex is an easy way to do this. For example, someone may feel that they're really unattractive, but having sex with a couple of people can make them feel that they are, in fact, actually attractive to others. So this behaviour develops into a cycle of the person's constant need for that assurance. It's ego-boosting. But a low self esteem is something very different to a low moral character.

[onona]

Why is everyone so worried about her lifestyle simple it makes for interesting news why else would it be in the papers , only when a case is interesting does it ever reach the news

I think you missed the entire point of the thread. This is about double standards regarding the perception of sexuality in men and women, and about the association between morals and sexuality.

[Kharrak]

To answer the initial question: ratings.

Weaving a tale to attract the attention and horror of the more reserved public, building it into what it's not, creating something that's not there, so that they have something for people to keep watching, so that they get high ratings.

The news isn't a service, or rather the days in which it presented news in a boring matter-of-fact manner are long gone. It's a business, competing with other stations to make more money, to make as much money as possible. News stations have often intentionally incited panic where there was no danger, demonized someone who is in fact no different from the average, intentionally breed fear and worry, all because it makes people keep watching.

[Gambit]

Mmm.. I understand what you are saying about my choice of words, come to think of it based on some of your opinions you highlighted on this topic I would like to withdraw that statement I made... just because I is based on my personal opinion, and it does not further this topic.

I guess I just cannot fathom having sex with no emotional involvement apart from the physical pleasures, this coming from a guy I think this is quite a statement I just made. :) Not all stereotypes about guys are true.

Btw.. are you talking about 'one night stands' or mutual agreed upon 'friends with benefits situations or both?

[onona]

Btw.. are you talking about 'one night stands' or mutual agreed upon 'friends with benefits situations or both?

Both. Although friends with benefits is generally not a good idea, in my opinion. Because friends already have an emotional attachment, it can become problematic, and I think the chances of one of the friends developing stronger feelings is quite high.

[dislekcia]

Gambit, sir, I think you keep using the wrong fusebox to get your meanings across. Are you sure you're not me?

[Gambit]

Gambit, sir, I think you keep using the wrong fusebox to get your meanings across. Are you sure you're not me?

:) Don't know exactly what you mean... but possibly yes I might be you. :p

[Azimuth]

I'm not entirely convinced of Amanda Knox's guilt or innocence in the case, but I did find her portrayal in the media completely absurd. Her owning a vibrator or taking multiple lovers has nothing whatsoever to do with her potential to be a murderer. As onona has already pointed out, a man's masturbatory paraphernalia and sexual history aren't dragged into court. It just sadly symptomatic of the demonisation feminine sexuality still files under in some cultures, where a women's sexual prerogative or indulgence is equated with some (nebulous) notion of wickedness and debauchery. The old femme fatale trope, in other words. Meanwhile, guys just have wanks.

It's only fair to point out, though, that the "eyes of a killer" media hysteria isn't reserved exclusively for women. I've seen loads of men described that way over the years. Blame rubbish tabloids like You magazine, and the people who read them. I guess the real problem here is "people who read them" probably include jurors.