In message , Palindrome
writes
>Which would you rather, face prosecution in that country having been
>sent back to it - or face prosecution here?
>
>If you go abroad and break laws in a foreign country, you should expect
>to suffer the consequences - whether they be imposed via that country's
>legal system or your own.
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Sue? Or have you
suddenly overdosed on the Daily Mail. If you are not used to it, small
quantities only until your (in)tolerance levels build up again.
If I break a law in a foreign country, I should be liable to be
prosecuted in that foreign country. If I return to my own country where
that same action is not a crime, I would not expect either to be
extradited or to be prosecuted in my home country for doing something
outside its borders, and therefore outside its legal jurisdiction, and
that was not a crime anyway.
I think a lot of comments on this thread have missed an important point,
namely that according to the report, prosecution would only happen if
the offence is also a crime in the home country, but even so, this
extra-territorial jurisdiction is a new departure. While I can
understand why it has been introduced for extreme cases such as war
crimes and child . tourism, as they say, hard cases make bad law. Once
you extend the principle, you end up with a world governed by the most
extreme and repressive law that can be found anywhere on the planet.
--
Richard Miller |