Committing Crimes While Traveling Abroad?

Apreche

Let's say you have citizen X. Citizen X goes on vacation to a foreign country. There he engages in activities that are legal in the foreign country, but not legal in his home country.

Ok, start over. Citizen X goes to a foreign land, and he engages in activities that are illegal in that foreign land, but not illegal in his home country.

Last one. Citizen X goes to a foreign land and engages in activities that are illegal both in his own country, and the country he is visiting.

Should citizen X get a trial? Which country's legal system should citizen X be tried in? Should there be some separate international agency to deal with citizen X? Maybe in the third case, citizen X could even get tried and punished twice just for one crime. What do you think is right thing to do when these sorts of things happen?

Omnutia

The obvious answer would be to be tried in the country where the the crime was committed.

HungryJoe

Read this.

From above source:

In English law, where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, if it was committed by a British citizen (see s9 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (OAP) and s3 British Nationality Act 1948). In R v Cheong (2006) AER (D) 385 the appellant was living in Guyana in 1983. He shot and killed a man who had just robbed his wife and sister-in-law. Under local law he was charged only with the unlicensed possession of a firearm; but as a British citizen, s9 OAP Act 1861 applied when he returned to England and he was charged with murder.

Apreche

The obvious answer would be to be tried in the country where the the crime was committed.

Hypothetically, let's say I go to a foreign country, and I don't speak the language very well. They have a nice statue there, and I look at it. However, it is considered disrespectful to look at the statue for too long. The punishment is many years in prison or death! I now am arrested for something I didn't know was illegal, and shouldn't be illegal. Shouldn't the home country protect its citizens from being treated like this while they are traveling abroad.

Apreche

Read this.

I'm not asking what is, I'm asking what should be.

HungryJoe

Read this.

I'm not asking whatis, I'm asking what should be.

Well, if that's what you're asking, I think the traveler should have the burden of complying with both the laws of his home state and the visited state. If he violates a law held in common between the states, the state in which he committed the infraction should get first crack at him.

xenomouse

I believe that the severity of the crime and the intent of the "vacation" is key to that question.



If you engage in something, unaware of its legality, you should be deported to your country of origin, assuming you are convicted. For example, someone from the Netherlands visits the U.S. and purchases a substantial amount of drugs for the friend with whom he's staying. If that amount is enough for a felony charge and if he is found guilty, send him back to the Netherlands. If that same person came to the U.S. aware that possession of that amount of drugs was illegal and aware of the penalties but did it anyway, then he intended to commit a felony, and he gets to spend some time in one of our illustrious penal facilities.



Similar standards could be used for the vice versa situation. If a person from the U.S. goes to the Netherlands and smokes some pot while he's there (for which you might get a citation in the U.S.), let it slide as there are much more serious issues to deal with. If the same person went to a place in which underage prostitution was legal, then the authorities back home might have something to say about that when he gets back.

HungryJoe

In his book, Catch Me if You Can, Frank Abagnale described what it was like for him when he was caught in France. Many countries were lined up waiting to prosecute him, but, since he was caught in France, France got the first bite. He described France's prison as being barbarically harsh. Then he went to Sweden, where he was "imprisoned" on a college campus, was allowed to do nearly anything he wanted, and even got to take college courses.

Scandanavia is teh win. Carole and I are seriously thinking of moving to some Scandanavian country for retirement.

Apreche

In his book,Catch Me if You Can,Frank Abagnale described what it was like for him when he was caught in France. Many countries were lined up waiting to prosecute him, but, since he was caught in France, France got the first bite. He described France's prison as being barbarically harsh. Then he went to Sweden, where he was "imprisoned" on a college campus, was allowed to do nearly anything he wanted, and even got to take college courses.

Scandanavia is teh win. Carole and I are seriously thinking of moving to some Scandanavian country for retirement.

That was a good movie. I will put that book on my list.

Starfox

I think the knock knock joke Tom Hanks tells in that movie is the best one ever.

HungryJoe

That was a good movie. I will put that book on my list.

As usual, the book was better.

Erwin

You can see many illegal immigrants that if accused and sentenced for a crime they will have to pay for it here in the states and then they would be sent to their countries.
I guess one must to be informed of what to do and not do in other countries since everyone have different customs and believes.

HungryJoe

I guess one must to be informed of what to do and not do in other countries since everyone have different customs and believes.

I think that's just to be expected from someone who travels to another country. If we actually go to say, Iceland, for example, we're gonna research Icelandic law, culture, politics, industry, and learn enough of the language so that the people don't think we're Ugly Americans.

...

You can come to the Netherlands, smoke legal soft drugs here, and just go back to the US without problems. Well, a new addiction perhaps. But you won't be fucked in the US for smoking drugs in the Netherlands afaik. So doing stuff that's illegal in your own country but legal in the country you visit results in no problems since you are not on your home countries land.

Now if you live in the Netherlands, go to the US (just examples) and smoke soft drugs which are legal in the Netherlands, but illegal in the US. You can get caught. And if you get caught you'll be punished for you were doing illegal activities in the US.

Now for the third. Doing something that's illegal in both countries. Let's take murder, the Netherlands and the US. If you live in the US, where murder is illegal, go on vacation to the Netherlands, where murder is also illegal, and murder some random person, and you get caught, you should be put on trial in the Netherlands. Okay, the US probably knows then one of their citizens did something illegal in the Netherlands, but the US can't do anything on Dutch soil. However, if you manage to get back to the US after having killed said random person, the Netherlands might ask the US to send you back or put you on trail for the murder.

That's how I think things like this should be done.

EsonLinji

I pretty much agree that while you are in country X, you are bound by the laws of country X. And just like at home, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Extradition can give countries a bit of flexibility in how they deal with things that are crimes in country Y but not in country X. Country X can agree to only extradite people for actions in country Y that are a crime in both country X and Y. For example, the Netherlands wouldn't extradite someone to America for pot smoking, but would for murder.

I don't agree with the idea of laws of country X applying outside of country X (with a few certain exceptions such as military law). It raises issues of national sovereignty, especially if the two countries are unequal in power.

HungryJoe

Here is a very complete article on Medellin v. Texas, argued before SCOTUS today. It involves conflicts between U.S. law, Texas Law, and International Law.

José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national, was convicted of capital murder in Texas district court and sentenced to death for his participation in the rape and murder of two teenage girls. Medellín was not advised after his arrest of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to contact a Mexican consular official. Under Texas law, Medellín waived his rights by not asserting them at trial. Pursuant to the Avena decision of the International Court of Justice and a memorandum issued by the President directing state courts to give effect to it, Medellín argues that Texas courts must review and reconsider his sentence. On the other hand, the State of Texas contends that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally transform an international obligation into domestic law. The State of Texas also argues that the President’s memorandum infringes on the sovereignty of the states and that Medellín has already received the judicial review prescribed by the Avena decision. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to give effect to the President’s memorandum on the grounds that it exceeds his constitutional powers. How the Supreme Court decides this case will reflect its views on the separation of powers between the three branches of government, and whether individuals may enforce the Vienna Convention in court. This decision will clarify the President’s authority in foreign affairs and may adversely impact the willingness of foreign nations to enter into future treaties with the United States.

Source.
Here is Medellin's brief for the SCOTUS.