Cynic wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:34:37 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> It was "a crime anyway". You have escaped the consequences of your
>> criminal act by fleeing the country in which it was performed. Which
>> cannot be fair or just.
>
> Why stop there? Why allow a person to escape justice simply because
> they *committed* the crime in a country that did not regard it as a
> crime rather than merely managing to escape to such a country?
>
> If you believe that the UK authorities should convict a person for
> committing adultery in a country where that is illegal, why should
> they not convict for committing adultery in the UK? After all, it is
> surely the act that merits punishment, not the place it was committed.
It is the illegal act that merits punishment. If you go to a country and
break its laws - you should not be able to escape the consequences by
returning home. Different countries have different laws. Everyone here
has accepted the justice of being subject to local laws whilst in
country. I really cannot see the logic that fleeing from the law should
result in anything else other than being returned to it. A fair trial
and fair treatment permitting.
>
> No, Sue. A government should punish people for what *it* believes is
> wrong, not for what some other government believes is wrong.
Our government would be punishing people on behalf of the government of
the country in which the offence took place. As an alternative to
sending the individual back and with the agreement of the country and
the accused. Seems fair enough to me.
>
> Would you want to see a black person stand trial in the UK for
> breaking a race law in a country that practises discrimination?
>
Yep. If a person chooses to go to another country and chooses to break
its laws - then, subject to a fair trial and fair treatment, they should
suffer the consequences. If they and the country concerned are willing
to accept a trial and punishment in the UK, then, why not?
--
Sue
|