Law Beyond Borders

[Mr Majik]

In recent times I have been both happy and troubled by the way nations' laws are applied outside of their territories. This week, the big news is the Canadian guy being sought after in Thailand (or wherever he may have fled) for filming himself abusing young boys in Vietnam. I am happy that they have him in their sights, and will e happier when they finally hold him. That's where my morals lie.
However, I am somewhat troubled that he will be charged in Canada, although their is no evidence that he committed any crimes here. I guess I am divided between what I believe is right morally vs what I believe is legal.
Some of you will remember a case or two in Trinidad involving kidnapped American nationals. The US sought extradition of the suspects although their crime was committed in T'dad, and it doesn't seem that any of them had ever been to the US. There are those among you who may feel this is no big deal, but consider the ramifications.
You may do something that is illegal in your home country that is fully legal in the country you do it in. Should it be right to have to pay a penalty when you go back home?
A lot of North Americans visit Amsterdam to enjoy the cafes where weed and hash are sold and openly smoked, and whilst there they may decide to partake in the fully legal (in Amsterdam) brothels. Should they face criminal sanctions upon their return home?

If a Canadian lives in a US state where possessing and carrying handguns is legal, and he obtains one, then one night he shoots an intruder who enters his home, which is fully legal in the state, should he be charged when he returns to Canada since Canadian law does not allow someone who rightfully possesses a gun to shoot an intruder? In fact, Canadian law mandates that those who own handguns must keep them locked up, with the amunition locked up separately.

And what about that US law that makes it illegal for anyone, anywhere in the world, to harm a US citizen, and be subject to prosecution in the US? You mean 2 Trinis can fight in Frederick Street Mall and one cut the other tail real good, and get charged with, say, wounding. Now they find out the other fella used to live in Brooklyn and have US citizenship. You mean the guy who got charged could do time in T'dad, then get sent to New York to do more time?
I can't wrap my head around that one.

What are your views?

[sapodila]

I see the double standard here. However I think Peter / Patsy should pay for his /her actions to the fullest extent of the law, wherever the crime is committed, like in the case of the young men who brutally murdered the US soldiers. Now since this affects the USA Army different (their) rules apply. You don't see no one being extradited from Trinidad for brutaly murdering that four year old boy ( US citizen) in couva in the cane fields couple years back. On the other hand, when someone goes on a vacation ( Amsterdam), what he / she does there in those cafes / brothels is their own damn business. Likewise, in the USA gun owners should lockup their guns and ammo separately - some states it's mandated, others not. If the Brooklyn boi goes to foreign land and causes trouble, then by all means cut his @$$ both ways.

[serenity]

I'm not sure sure how the law works with extradition matters but I think that if a crime is committed in foreign by a US citizen, the US tries to get them home to face a trial there. The jail time is usually calculated at a much smaller fraction than it would have been if tried and convicted outside the US...at least that's what I recall of a documentary I once saw.

Good topic Majik, I should look it up.

[Mr Majik]

I'm not sure sure how the law works with extradition matters but I think that if a crime is committed in foreign by a US citizen, the US tries to get them home to face a trial there. The jail time is usually calculated at a much smaller fraction than it would have been if tried and convicted outside the US...at least that's what I recall of a documentary I once saw.

Good topic Majik, I should look it up.As far as I understand it, and I understand legal matters very well, it is only certain crimes that the US will try one of their own citizens for, if the crime was comitted externally. Two, for certain, as the US is a signatory to UN agreements, are suspected Nazi war crimes and sexual exploitation of minors. In fact, it was just in the news recently that a man was charged for Nazi war crimes in the US. And since the UN agreement on child exploitation a booming "sex tour" business came to almost a complete stop. American men were travelling to Thailand, amongst other places, to avail themselves of child prostitutes.
There are probably a few other offences where the US will prosecute.

As for the US bringing home their own citizens to face charges, I don't believe that is how it works. They will usually allow the foreign court to prosecute, then when the person finishes his sentence they might face further prosecution at home. I believe that the crime must fall into a category such as I've noted in the preceding paragraph. It is doubtful that one would face a lighter sentence in the US, since they like to lock people up more than any other country.

There is an international treaty that allows a prisoner to apply to finish their sentence in their home country. I know that Trinidad, the USA and Canada are signatories to that. One can imagine that most North Americans would make that application if jailed in T'dad, but I think it would be rare for a Trini to apply to do their time back home. lol

[serenity]

The documentary I saw was on prosecution of US citizens for drug trafficking. ...hmmm....now I'm wondering if I mix it up with British nationals...
Anyway, somebody, gets to only do a fraction of their sentence if they go back home.
Lordy..this post make no sense eh... :evil:

[Mr Majik]

What it might be is that the home country will allow one to apply for parole and such under the home laws. Britain and Canada have relatively generous parole laws, whereas the US doesn't.
In Canada, for instance, a federally incarcerated person (ie: one serving 2 years or more) can apply after 1/6th of their sentence for a day parole, in which they would live in a halfway house in the community while working or going to school. Most halfway houses mandate that the offender has a nightime curfew of approx. 8 hours, ie: 11pm - 7am.
The offender can then apply at 1/3 for a full parole, where he would go home and live under certain conditions for the remainder of his sentence.

On a side note, the right wing conservative press has led many Canadians to believe that a life sentence means no more than 25 years. But the fact is, 25 years is the longest time an offender can be required to serve before applying for parole. If parole is granted then he would remain on parole for the rest of his life, with whatever conditions imposed on him.

[sapodila]

What it might be is that the home country will allow one to apply for parole and such under the home laws. Britain and Canada have relatively generous parole laws, whereas the US doesn't.
In Canada, for instance, a federally incarcerated person (ie: one serving 2 years or more) can apply after 1/6th of their sentence for a day parole, in which they would live in a halfway house in the community while working or going to school. Most halfway houses mandate that the offender has a nightime curfew of approx. 8 hours, ie: 11pm - 7am.
The offender can then apply at 1/3 for a full parole, where he would go home and live under certain conditions for the remainder of his sentence.


On a side note, the right wing conservative press has led many Canadians to believe that a life sentence means no more than 25 years. But the fact is, 25 years is the longest time an offender can be required to serve before applying for parole. If parole is granted then he would remain on parole for the rest of his life, with whatever conditions imposed on him.

This begs the question : Was Karla Halomka ever granted parole and does Paul Bernardo has a chance at applying for parole? Those two should have been in Texas and commited their crimes there. Then tax payers money would not have been comforting them in any prison.

[Mr Majik]

Karla Homolka was sentenced to 12 years and served all except the last few days. She had never applied for parole. In Canadian law most people would bee automatically released after 2/3 of their sentence, but in rare cases they will keep someone to do all their time if they meet certain criteria.
Karla had hoped to get out at 2/3 (8 years) but she didn't.

Paul Bernardo was sentenced to Life, with no eligibilty of parole for 25. Past cases will suggest that he will never get parole. People of his infamy rarely ever do get out.

Interestingly, I have come to believe that Paul was not the acual killer. That was Karla. She got the sweetheart deal in this.

[sapodila]

.........As part of her plea bargain............the devil!

[KFCSpicy]

I just read the report on this case. Karla refused parole from what I could deduce from the article online. It seemed she was having tooo much of a good time in prison amongst like minded individuals and didn't want to be released. Now that she is released she is penitant and afraid of being made a target.

She is totally evil and I don't care what so called battered wife syndrome she went through...in most cases of couple killing together their is always the dominant and the dominated. The dominated one is the one with the power though as this person manipulates the situation.

Whatever the outcome, she days numbered...hopefully she will die a death deserving of her nature, because I doubt she is really remorseful or sad. Just sad she got caught and publicised.

[KFCSpicy]

You all should read this before saying she was mostly to blame though...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill ... rdo/9.html (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/9.html)

[sapodila]

Then there was Kristen French.... who was totally opposite Leslie MaHaffey and was minding her own business on her way home from school and not looking for trouble.........bottom line........Those two demons deserves no place on earth.

[snowbird]

As to you topic Majik, I think the rule should be if you commit a crime in a particular country or jurisdiction then that is where you stand trial, and serve your time; no if ands or buts; I never did understand this thing about shipping people back to their home countries to be tried for crimes committed elsewhere.

By the same token, I realize sometimes we are scandalized to learn that people from our 'lilly white' countries will stoop as low as to 'vacation' in countries where it is not against the law to have sex with minors, smoke pot etc. What can you do? if while there they choose to avail themselves of the services, they haven't broken any law.

The only way I can think of attacking that problem is ...... making it illegal for travel agents to advertise that type of vacation package in our countries; but alas, there is always the internet. Until we have a standard Global 'morality code' there is no fighting this..... legally anyway.

[deeva]

As to you topic Majik, I think the rule should be if you commit a crime in a particular country or jurisdiction then that is where you stand trial, and serve your time; no if ands or buts; I never did understand this thing about shipping people back to their home countries to be tried for crimes committed elsewhere.

By the same token, I realize sometimes we are scandalized to learn that people from our 'lilly white' countries will stoop as low as to 'vacation' in countries where it is not against the law to have sex with minors, smoke pot etc. What can you do? if while there they choose to avail themselves of the services, they haven't broken any law.

The only way I can think of attacking that problem is ...... making it illegal for travel agents to advertise that type of vacation package in our countries; but alas, there is always the internet. Until we have a standard Global 'morality code' there is no fighting this..... legally anyway.

It's against the Law in any country to have sex with minors

[Mr Majik]

It's against the Law in any country to have sex with minorsTrue. However, there are countries where the law is not stringently enforced. Vietnam, Thailand and the Dominican Republic are a few of them.
Add to that the fact that what is considered sex with a minor differs from one nation to the next. One country may prosecute a man who went overseas and had sex with a 14 y/o, even if that was the age of consent in the country where the sex took place. Technically, an American can get charged for having sex legally in Canada with a 14 y/o. Fortunately, Canada is exploring changing the law. So far there is one proposal to raise the age of consent, perhaps to 16 or 17. There is also a proposal which may not raise the age, but rather put limits on the age difference between the parties involved in the sex. One I have heard is a 5 year limit on those aged 16 and 17, and a 3 year limit for those aged 14 and 15.

[snowbird]

It's against the Law in any country to have sex with minorsTrue. However, there are countries where the law is not stringently enforced. Vietnam, Thailand and the Dominican Republic are a few of them.
Add to that the fact that what is considered sex with a minor differs from one nation to the next. One country may prosecute a man who went overseas and had sex with a 14 y/o, even if that was the age of consent in the country where the sex took place. Technically, an American can get charged for having sex legally in Canada with a 14 y/o. Fortunately, Canada is exploring changing the law. So far there is one proposal to raise the age of consent, perhaps to 16 or 17. There is also a proposal which may not raise the age, but rather put limits on the age difference between the parties involved in the sex. One I have heard is a 5 year limit on those aged 16 and 17, and a 3 year limit for those aged 14 and 15.

This makes allot more sense as human nature and 'hormones' being what it is, as the law stands right now, too many young people could end up getting themselves into real trouble simply for 'acting their age'.