Must Amanda Knox make millions?

Amanda Knox stands to make millions from press deals in the aftermath of her imprisonment in Italy. Is it acceptable for her to earn a single penny out of Meredith’s death?

Some would say “yes” – if Amanda is indeed the innocent victim of a dreadful miscarriage of justice. She underwent a nightmarish and horrifying ordeal over four long years that will have left her permanently scarred. Her notoriety is such that there is no chance of her returning to a normal way of life in Seattle. It’s only reasonable, therefore, that she makes use of that fame to both champion the cause of wrongful conviction and to provide herself with a high level of income. It is, one could say, small compensation for the terrible suffering and trauma of an innocent person.

If, conversely, Amanda is guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher, and only won her appeal because of insufficient evidence and a botched enquiry, the answer is an emphatic “no”. Not only should she remain behind bars, but the thought of her profiteering out of this terrible crime is deeply cruel to the aggrieved Kercher family and unacceptable to society in general. To reward a vicious killer with fortune and celebrity is utterly repugnant.

There is a wider issue here. The sums received by people who are wrongly convicted vary enormously and are disproportionate to the amount of injustice or suffering. Amanda Knox, with her powerful publicity campaign, the high profile of the murder and her photogenic looks, is set to make huge sums. But there are others, whose cases have not hit the headlines, who are released from prison into poverty, and with precious little expectation of having their stories sold.

How, then, does one begin to address these inequities and the fact that a murderer, released on a technicality, can potentially earn millions? With great difficulty, but here’s a germ of an idea …

Why don’t the USA, Britain and other democracies introduce laws that state that no media or publishing entity can make a payment directly to anyone charged, convicted, suspected of or exonerated from murder for anything in connection with that murder? Instead, all monies negotiated for buying the story should be paid to independent charities that work with victims of miscarriages of justice.

The charities would hold the funds and dispense them in the ratio they deem fit, to both the individuals and other victims of miscarriage of justice. If the case of Amanda Knox, for instance, it would mean that all her media/book earnings go first to the charity, which will assess how much she should receive and how much should go to help others.

You could say that this allows the charities to play God – by, in effect, deciding who is less worthy and innocent – but they would be in the position to assess the needs of all the miscarriage of justice victims, including the unsung ones, and dispense the funds on that basis.

And what about the families of the murder victims? My first thought was that they should be the recipients of the media earnings but, the more I considered this, the more complications and dilemmas I could see. Would, for instance, the Kerchers feel comfortable taking money “earned” by Amanda Knox? I concluded that there were other and better ways to give financial help to bereaved families and that this scheme should centre on victims of miscarriages of justice.

Establishing and administering it would be quite complex to start with, but it could work and would certainly be an improvement on the status quo. At any rate, it is food for thought.

Advertisements

4 responses to “Must Amanda Knox make millions?

  1. Interesting thought, and something I’d like to see worked towards. However, I’d disagree that Knox suffered over four years. They may have been dreadful, but she earned three of them. The trouble with all of this is that nobody ever really knows, so although this proposed system would be fairer, it’d never be foolproof. The end of Trial By Media would be a start. If there wasn’t so much interest in the Anthony and Knox cases, their potential earnings wouldn’t really be an issue.

  2. Amanda is an innocent woman who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s amazing how people are so quick to judge in a horrible manner who has made her popular through all their comments and judgments and of course the media. With who she is as a young spirited sweet person it is clear she is innocent. With all the lies and slander that the horrible man of a prosecutor could ever spend the time to harm her and want to put her away for life instead of focusing on finding the real murderer which was Rudy the idiot of a man who killed her with his DNA all over the place. It’s amazing how people are defending him and listening to him in truth when he is guilty as hell. He has committed crime before so it’s clear that he could do this all by himself. All evident show that. The prosecutor is sick, the idiot of Rudy is sick and unfortunately people want to believe she is guilty and believe the horrible fantasy of her. Do you think she really wants money!?. She only wants freedom and peace, not money. She is not the one who is making fame for herself or wants it. She just plainly wants freedom. There is no possible way Amanda and Rafaelleare guilty. Besides, they were two people who knew each other for only 6 days and were head over heels for each other who probably spoke about themselves of joy and excitement of attraction. I know we all have felt that way one time or another of being in love at first site. All you want to do is spend every waking moment and thought with each other learning about one another. Hate is not in the air only love.
    However, I personally think she should make money for all this cruelty of slander of lies that were made and making her life hell. So I hope she makes millions, she deserves it! God bless Meredith may she rest in peace.

  3. So. You can be cleared of a crime and than be forced to give up any earnings you might make from talking about several years spent in prison? Have a word with yourself.

    • No one has said that the person would be forced to give up any earnings. They may well receive a large proportion. But don’t forget the people who are exonerated or pardoned who make no money at all. The suggestion is for a more just system for allocating the often disproportionate sums involved.

      It would also prevent a situation, as happened with OJ Simpson, where a murderer who had been wrongly acquitted, was seen to be earning vast sums of money through books and other media deals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s