Should a country be allowed prosecute for what happens outside of it's jurisdiction?

seamus

This is something which arised in the abortion thread, which I've wanted to discuss, but didn't quite know how to say it.

The UK, for example, has a policy of arresting, trying and convicting people who travel abroad to solicit sex from minors. As we know, it's quite legal in many other countries, and even acceptable.

The UK is essentially out of it's jurisdiction here. It has convicted people for committing crimes which a) didn't occur on British soil (be it and actual country or an embassy), and b) which is perfectly legal in the country in which it occured.

Should the UK be allowed do this? Who are they to tell another country that their laws are wrong, and to take control over policing what occurs in those countries? Now, admittedly, I find myself torn. If the UK are doing this, I feel that they are hypocrits for not convicting those who possess, ingest or sell Marijuana in Holland, for example. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Britons, travel to Amsterdam each year, the legal consuming of Marijuana probably being quite a major factor in this choice. Certainly with students and young people it is.

So where I find myself torn is in exactly what they're doing. They believe that soliciting child sex is wrong, and is exploitation. And I agree. In my opinion, peadophilia is wrong, and in my opinion countries that do not outlaw it are wrong. But is that enough? Is an opinion enough? Regardless of what you feel about peadophilia, you cannot ignore that your opinion is your opinion, and you're not necessarily right. Personally, it sounds like a different issue to that of drugs, but technically, it's not. What a country decides what is wrong, and what is right, is something the country itself decides, but child sex isn't like taking drugs. It's exploitation. Or is it? Is it that different? Is our feeling of what is right and what is wrong, an opinion based on what is legal, and what we've been told? Should countries be allowed to prosecute for things that happen outside their borders?

Victor

I think in specific cases extra-jurisdictional prosecution is not only the right thing to do, but actually is an imperative thing to do. Cases such as war crimes and paedophilia and other crimes where the criminal has absolute power over the victim and the victim has no recourse to law, that imperative exists.

The flip-side of your question is " Should a person be allowed commit a crime solely because it was committed outside of the prosecutors jurisdiction?"

Memnoch

Originally posted by Victor
I think in specific cases extra-jurisdictional prosecution is not only the right thing to do, but actually is an imperative thing to do. Cases such as war crimes and paedophilia and other crimes where the criminal has absolute power over the victim and the victim has no recourse to law, that imperative exists.

The flip-side of your question is " Should a person be allowed commit a crime solely because it was committed outside of the prosecutors jurisdiction?"

i think thats the point that seamus IS making. In those countries, having sex with a minor is not a "crime". So you can't really call anyone a "victim" atleast in legal terms. It comes back to the original point made by seamus, about laws and opinion. Unless the international community as a whole comes together and decides on an age of consent its a tricky issue... i think there are a few points to keep in mind here...

firstly in countries like spain the age of consent is 13.
another intersting point to consider is that the majority of teenagers in the UK have had sex by the ages of 14-15. Some start as early as 12-13. The same goes for most western countries, and even many developing countries.
Another point to consider is that we hit puberty at that age and biologically and scientifically we are then "supposed" to be reproducing, which is the only real "tangible" pupose of any living organism, with all other functions existing only to serve this purpose.

So while we have rules within our society that say its a "crime" to have sex with someone under 17, there are other countries which have a differing opinion, and I'd be interested in hearing why one is right and the other is necessarily wrong (again keeping in mind that most teenagers are having sex at these ages anyways).

As far as the issue of consent goes, the Gillick case has ALREADY shown that people below the age of consent in the UK CAN be considered intelligent enough to be able to make an informed decision for themselves. In this case a doctor was sued for providing contraceptives to a 15 year old girl by the girl's parents. This landmark case has changed the way GP's practise not only in the UK but also in Ireland.

The problem however as you sort of touched on in this issue is one of POWER. Adults tend to have power over someone who is say 13 years old. So in the case of someoen who is say 20+ having sex with someone who is 13-15, there is the concern of weather it is consent? or is it coersion? is it blackmail? is it simple force? And it is perhaps in light of that , that there is a higher age of consent in the UK that tries to account for this. But what about two 14 or 15 year olds having sex with each other? Since neither has the right to consent they are both criminals?

I'd say its tricky moral ground when you start talking about imposing the rules of one country over the rules of another. Especially on subjects where there ISN'T a global consensus.

seamus

Originally posted by Victor
The flip-side of your question is " Should a person be allowed commit a crime solely because it was committed outside of the prosecutors jurisdiction?"

Memnoch was right. What I would say there is - "How can it be considered a crime when it occured outside of a legal jurisdiction?". A crime is something that is in contravention of the law. It's internationally accepted that local laws only apply within the country where they were enacted, therefore anything commited outside of that jurisdiction cannot be considered a crime under any normal meaning of the word.

Memnoch

also ironically enough, wasn't the British government recently arguing that British soldiers that were committing crimes under the 1998 human rights european convention couldn't be tried in the Uk because the crimes were committed in Iraq and Iraq is not "covered" by the convention.

i suppose its a case of applying one rule where it suits and another where it doesn't.

Either a country should prosecute individuals for ALL crimes committed under its law whereever they occur, or they should prosecute for none.

Personally i think that unless there is a global consenus and international law, you can't impose local laws on people who did things in other countries.

bonkey

Ah...but think about what they're saying...

The law is not that its illegal to commit paedohilia outside the nation. Its that its illegal to travel abroad with the express intent of doing so.

The British are not casting judgement on whether the act is, or is not, legal in hte nation of destination. It doesn't matter. Because it is "express intent", it suggests premeditation. They are basically saying that acting - inside the borders of the state - on an intent to commit paedohilia - in an unspecified location - is a crime.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
Ah...but think about what they're saying...

The law is not that its illegal to commit paedohilia outside the nation. Its that its illegal to travel abroad with the express intent of doing so.

The British are not casting judgement on whether the act is, or is not, legal in hte nation of destination. It doesn't matter. Because it is "express intent", it suggests premeditation. They are basically saying that acting - inside the borders of the state - on an intent to commit paedohilia - in an unspecified location - is a crime.

jc

so in that case it should be made a crime to be "thinking" about having sex with someone under the age of consent in the UK? Its a reallly dodgy issue. How can they prove that X person went to Y country for specifically having sex with a minor, when X person claims that they just went for a holiday, and just happened to meet up with someone they liked.

Its tough to conclude "premeditation" unless you find an email or a witness or something. As far as i'm aware they don't do this. They just directly draw the conclusion that because someone had a sex with someone that was below the age of consent in the UK, in anotehr country, therefore it was their "express intent" to do so.

If they DO try to prove this, however, then i'd say that while their still slightly on shaky moral ground in terms of imposing their rules on other countries, they are atleast on relatively sound legal ground.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
so in that case it should be made a crime to be "thinking" about having sex with someone under the age of consent in the UK?

No. In that case, the case could be made that it is a crime to commit acts with the specific intent of having sex with someone underage.

How can they prove that X person went to Y country for specifically having sex with a minor, when X person claims that they just went for a holiday, and just happened to meet up with someone they liked.

Allowing for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" means that this is the case anyway. Thats a seperate issue.

They just directly draw the conclusion that because someone had a sex with someone that was below the age of consent in the UK, in anotehr country, therefore it was their "express intent" to do so.

Is that a question (without a question mark), an opinion, or a statement of fact? Its hard to make out.

I would assume that, in actual fact, the British courts would actually expect the rigours of proof to be upheld, as well as the concept - again - of "innocent until proven otherwise".

If they DO try to prove this, however, then i'd say that while their still slightly on shaky moral ground in terms of imposing their rules on other countries, they are atleast on relatively sound legal ground.

Regardless of the reality - which neither of us are sure of - I agree fully with this.

jc

Victor

So war crimes are OK?

Those paedophilia laws, as best I know only apply to citizens and there is a similar law here.

And as regards there being no age of consent in particular countries, I think the (Irish / UK) laws are primarily aimed at places where there is either a problem with laws not being enforced and there being systematic abuse of young people or that systematic abuse is facilated by the absence of such laws.

Organisated prostitution tourism is also a problem.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Victor
So war crimes are OK?

where did I say that? In fact, I think think i quite specifically stated, that where there IS a consensus in international law (i.e. war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace), in those cases it makes legal AND morallly right for countries to convict people outside their "jurisdiction" as it were. But there is already an international court to take care of this issue.
The issue with the age of consent, is that it varies widely accross many countries, and I'm still interested in hearing an arguement which shows that the age on consent in the UK is correct, but the age of consent in spain or Japan is wrong.

Those paedophilia laws, as best I know only apply to citizens and there is a similar law here.

applying your logic from the war crimes quote. Does this now mean that the spanish government and its citizens are now all paedophiles since they think its okay for someone above the age of 13 to consent to sex?

Organisated prostitution tourism is also a problem.

Prostitution needs to be legalised anyways, though thats a topic for another debate i'm sure
While on this point, should someone who goes to holland or australia (where prostitution is legal) for the purpose of having sex with a prostitute, also be made to face criminal charges on their return? Even if the prostitute is 35 years old?

seamus

<Scratch the war crimes bit, Memnoch did it better>

I actually knew the wording of the British law, but failed to make the distinction, sorry. My point still stands though. How can they allow other people to leave the country, with premeditations to commit acts that would be a crime in their home country, and not have anything in place to prosecute them? We can argue till the cows come home about exploitation and why one crime is more heinous than another, but I agree, it's iffy moral ground, even if it is legally sound.

An afterthought of what Memnoch said about Spain - Imagine a Spanish man, 18 years old, married to a 14 year old girl. He spends most of his time in Britain studying, while his wife lives in Spain with his family. day, he goes to depart home. Now obviously, he intends to go home and have sex with his 14-year-old wife. He is leavign the country for the purpose of seeing and having sexual relations with his 14-year-old wife. Is it right, that under British law, he may be arrested? Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe it only applies if they can prove that having underage sex is the only reason a person left the country? If so, surely most people could claim they're going away for a holiday. The child sex was incidental.

Victor

Originally posted by Memnoch
where did I say that?

I was talking to Seamus, not you.

Originally posted by Memnoch
While on this point, should someone who goes to holland or australia (where prostitution is legal) for the purpose of having sex with a prostitute, also be made to face criminal charges on their return? Even if the prostitute is 35 years old?

I don't think we are talking about 35 year olds here in a safe setting. I think we are talking about teenagers and younger in an unsafe setting.

Can you get married in Spain at 14?

arcadegame2004

Overall on this particular issue, I would feel that where the crime is one where both states agree something is a crime, then it should probably be ok for any of the 2 or more states involved carry out the prosecution. I personally feel that our age of consent of 17 should be lowered to 16. Polls of young people show that about 60% of them have lost their virginity by that age. If you had a scenario whereby an 18 year old British man had a 16 year old girlfriend with whom he was on holiday in Ireland, then I am against the Gardai arresting him for "carnal knowledge of a minor" as I think the crime is called.

In relation to Spain's age of consent being 13, I am surprised to hear that. I consider this to be too young. But if an 18 year old and 14 year old were married legally under Spanish law, then I suppose we have to respect that country's sovereignty, and leave them alone. But it just doesn't feel at all right to me that the age of consent should be THAT low. Spain really needs to rethink this.

While on this point, should someone who goes to holland or australia (where prostitution is legal) for the purpose of having sex with a prostitute, also be made to face criminal charges on their return? Even if the prostitute is 35 years old?

(Memnoch)

No I don't think so at all! The State needs to mind its own business where sex between consentin adults is concerned. I strongly believe we should legalise adult prostitution forwith. Think of the extra money for the Health-Service from paying corporation-tax by prostitutes if it was legal. We could also held control the spread of stds by prostitution via state-inspectors inspecting the premises and ensuring that regulations are enforced.

Overall on this particular issue, I would

seamus

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No I don't think so at all! The State needs to mind its own business where sex between consentin adults is concerned.

Well, that's part of the issue. Spain may not consider a 13 year old as an adult, but does consider them mature enough to consent to sex. Where do you draw the distinction? How do you know it's only adults that have the ability to consent to sex? Millions of Spaniards seem to disagree with you. Just because 17 is the legal age here, and you believe that 17 is the right age, does that give us the right to not only stop, but to prosecute, those who wish to travel overseas because they do not agree with you?

What if a government did the same for other laws? I'll bring up the tired drugs one again. I'm in absolutely no way advocating child sex, but what makes our law so morally right that we must impose it on our citizens when they're not in our country?