Richard Miller wrote:
> In message <0oiVj.690763$Gl5.331657@fe02.news.easynews.com>, Palindrome
> writes
>>
>> Why should an assassin be able to kill on the streets of London and
>> then never face justice? Why should someone be able to mutilate young
>> girls but never face justice? If we want those crimes to be punished,
>> we must also accept that our own citizens cannot escape justice by
>> coming home.
>
> Do be serious. This really is the most ridiculous defence of the
> indefensible I have seen recently. Can you name any country in the world
> where murder is not a crime?
Alexander Litvinenko was murdered. Do you think that the murderer should
be put on trial?
> How about GBH?
Even in the depths of the West Country, fgm happened and the suspected
perpetrator fled back home to Africa. Do you think she should be brought
to justice?
>
> If we follow your approach, then there is no longer any such thing as
> sovereignty or Government of the people by the people, just a single
> form of criminal law that applies throughout the world, determined by
> the dictators of China, North Korea and Iran.
How on Earth did you reach that conclusion? Those that don't travel to
other countries (most of the World population) would be entirely
unaffected by this. All I am suggesting is that, if you go to another
country and commit a crime, you should not be able to escape justice by
fleeing the country. Those that are caught in country would be
unaffected. Those that are extradited at present would be unaffected.
The only people that would be affected are those criminals with the
means to escape. Combine that with an exclusion of all countries which
don't have a fair system of justice and/or don't treat suspects fairly
and humanely and/or apply cruel or inhuman practices. What is the harm
of returning suspected criminals to the fair trials that they would have
received, had they not returned to their own country?
--
Sue
|