Is murder, theft, or related offenses legal ANYWHERE in the world?

[robert_columbia]

As in the title. Is there any jurisdiction anywhere in the world that one could travel where it is 100% legal to kill, steal, or do other things in that vein that are pretty much universally considered crimes? I am pretty much thinking about areas within the jurisdiction of a country rather than the high seas, Antarctica, or Space, because the law in those places is entangled in extraterritorial law.

As a hypothetical, if a US Citizen traveled to some foreign country (or a jurisdiction in a foreign country) where it was 100% legal to beat people senseless and take their belongings, and then went on a "robbery" spree, would the US be able to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction? Remember that this takes place in Outer Madhousistan and not on the high seas or some other location outside the territorial jurisdiction of a country.

While rape and other sexual offenses can be considered in scope to this question, please do not make this a thread to only discuss how some jurisdictions permit spousal rape while still considering stranger rape to be an offense.

Also, we are primarily talking about the law in theory. I know that there are places in the world such as Somalia where the law is not necessarily enforced to any significant degree because of a general lack of government.

[AK84]

Unless you want to allow situations which the local law enforcement authorities would not consider murder, I doubt it. Or in a place with a breakdown of law and order like a war zone.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by AK84

Unless you want to allow situations which the local law enforcement authorities would not consider murder, I doubt it. Or in a place with a breakdown of law and order like a war zone.

Or how about jurisdictions that, while they may not permit all "murders", they nevertheless allow things like honor killings or revenge killings based on sufficient cause, in such a circumstance that no jurisdiction in the US would consider it justified? For example, a jurisdiction where if John is over 180 days delinquent on a debt to Bill, that is sufficient cause for Bill to smack John in the head with a sledgehammer or riddle his body full of bullets and collect the money from his estate.

I am interested if there is anywhere where this is actually legal in theory. I seem to recall that there are some countries where, while honor killings are not technically legal, the police will, in practice, look the other way as long as the killing was in keeping with community values.

[lisiate]

Well you could include targeted drone attacks - seems just fine for the US to conduct them in Pakistan and Yemen according to US law. It'd be a totally different story if they took place in Massachusetts or Virginia...

[Giles]

Originally Posted by lisiate

Well you could include targeted drone attacks - seems just fine for the US to conduct them in Pakistan and Yemen according to US law. It'd be a totally different story if they took place in Massachusetts or Virginia...

Those are acts of war. It would be completely legal if Fredonia declared war on the United States, and the Fredonian People's Army conducted drone attacks on military targets in the U.S.: that would not be a crime under United States law. (However, the peace-loving people of Fredonia might expect the United States to retaliate.)

[lisiate]

What war exists between the US and Yemen or Pakistan?

[Giles]

Originally Posted by lisiate

What war exists between the US and Yemen or Pakistan?

None: The U.S. is fighting organisations like Al Qaida. Yemen or Pakistan could treat those attacks as constituting an act of war on the country, but they choose not to, for various practical reasons.

[lisiate]

Very compelling practical reasons...

[Covered_In_Bees!]

Okay, so putting war and related conflicts aside, what about theft? Or robbery? Or rape? You know, the other examples the OP included within the scope of his question.

[hibernicus]

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

While rape and other sexual offenses can be considered in scope to this question, please do not make this a thread to only discuss how some jurisdictions permit spousal rape while still considering stranger rape to be an offense.

I hope this doesn't sound like nitpicking, because I think it goes to the heart of your question. If it's not illegal, it's not murder. If it's not illegal, it's not rape. By definition. Even in your country, killing someone or having sex with someone may or may not be murder or rape, depending on circumstances and local laws. Same in Outer Madhousistan.

So it may be that what you are really looking for is examples of actions that are legal in another jurisidiction while a) illegal in your jurisdiction and b) "obviously" criminal in your judgment. Spousal rape is probably an excellent example. "Honour" killings (if they are actually legal anywhere) would be another.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Giles

Those are acts of war. It would be completely legal if Fredonia declared war on the United States, and the Fredonian People's Army conducted drone attacks on military targets in the U.S.: that would not be a crime under United States law. (However, the peace-loving people of Fredonia might expect the United States to retaliate.)

Sounds like there should be a preemptive strike on Fredonia. Keep them in their place.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Covered_In_Bees!

Okay, so putting war and related conflicts aside, what about theft? Or robbery? Or rape? You know, the other examples the OP included within the scope of his question.

Theft is the illegal taking of something just like murder is the illegal taking of a life. So there probably aren't places where theft and murder are legal.

There might be some places where it is legal to use questionable eminent domain laws to take property from someone, or scam someone out of their bank account using questionable but legal techniques ETA: or take things held in the public as common goods for yourself without the permission of the community (such as flowers ), but the classification of these as "theft" is a matter of morality and legality. The morality is debatable -- some of these instances are theft in my opinion. But if you were to post these as examples surely someone would say "That's not theft -- it's completely by the book!" Exactly.

[Donnerwetter]

I'm certain that there is no place in the world with some sort of organised society in which murder and theft as such are legal, i. e. this is the law of the land.

There are, however, countries in which traditions and customs play a very important role in every day life to the point where the government has little influence in certain situations and laws are simply not enforced. Things like honor killings come to mind.

But one would rather consider this a symptom of a weak or even failed state.

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, killing a woman was probably not considered a capital crime at all but would rather be treated as a (albeit severe) case of property damage (I haven't checked this, but this would be my interpretation).

[md2000]

One story I read said that during the first Lebanese civil war in the late 70's, spoilled pampered offspring of eastern Europe party officials would visit Beirut for the fun vacation activity of shooting random strangers near the green line with sniper rifles.

Of course, that was more an issue of war zone, law and order breakdown, or whatever rather than legality.

Similarly in the ungoverned areas of Somalia, piracy and hostage-taking seem to be acceptable activities.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by Donnerwetter

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, killing a woman was probably not considered a capital crime at all but would rather be treated as a (albeit severe) case of property damage (I haven't checked this, but this would be my interpretation).

Considering the Taliban began as a militia after the rape of several girls in Kandahar to punish warlords responsible I really really really doubt that.

[AK84]

On the issue of honour killing it should be pointed out that even liberal advanced oh so enlightened England, the classic common law example of the defense of provocation was and still is a person finding a spouse committing adultary with another.

[Quercus]

Heck, in Florida it's legal to kill someone threatening you, even if you could easily run away.

That's not legal in, say, Massachusetts.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Quercus

Heck, in Florida it's legal to kill someone threatening you, even if you could easily run away.

No, it's not. That is a inaccurate summation of what the Stand Your Ground Law says.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

As a hypothetical, if a US Citizen traveled to some foreign country (or a jurisdiction in a foreign country) where it was 100% legal to beat people senseless and take their belongings, and then went on a "robbery" spree, would the US be able to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction? Remember that this takes place in Outer Madhousistan and not on the high seas or some other location outside the territorial jurisdiction of a country.

That'a an interesting question. Normally, the answer would "no". But if a US citizen went on a killing spree, we might consider it to be an act of war, and send in the military to capture the guy. But this would have to be either a) with the permission of the local government or b) in case where there was no local government.

Originally Posted by md2000

One story I read said that during the first Lebanese civil war in the late 70's, spoilled pampered offspring of eastern Europe party officials would visit Beirut for the fun vacation activity of shooting random strangers near the green line with sniper rifles.

I'd like to see a cite for that.

Originally Posted by md2000

Similarly in the ungoverned areas of Somalia, piracy and hostage-taking seem to be acceptable activities.

From the OP:

Originally Posted by OP

I know that there are places in the world such as Somalia where the law is not necessarily enforced to any significant degree because of a general lack of government.

[lisiate]

Originally Posted by hibernicus

I hope this doesn't sound like nitpicking, because I think it goes to the heart of your question. If it's not illegal, it's not murder. If it's not illegal, it's not rape. By definition. Even in your country, killing someone or having sex with someone may or may not be murder or rape, depending on circumstances and local laws. Same in Outer Madhousistan.

So it may be that what you are really looking for is examples of actions that are legal in another jurisidiction while a) illegal in your jurisdiction and b) "obviously" criminal in your judgment. Spousal rape is probably an excellent example. "Honour" killings (if they are actually legal anywhere) would be another.

That's a very good point (if it's not illegal it's not murder/theft by definition). Shades of Harington's famous quip (I always thought it was one of Shakespeare's):

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by hibernicus

I hope this doesn't sound like nitpicking, because I think it goes to the heart of your question. If it's not illegal, it's not murder. If it's not illegal, it's not rape. By definition. Even in your country, killing someone or having sex with someone may or may not be murder or rape, depending on circumstances and local laws. Same in Outer Madhousistan.

So it may be that what you are really looking for is examples of actions that are legal in another jurisidiction while a) illegal in your jurisdiction and b) "obviously" criminal in your judgment. Spousal rape is probably an excellent example. "Honour" killings (if they are actually legal anywhere) would be another.

Emphasis added.

And you fell into the very trap you were trying to unset for the OP.

Shall we call it "spousal sex without consent"?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by kayaker

Sounds like there should be a preemptive strike on Fredonia. Keep them in their place.

No, we'll need some pretext, else we'll lose diplomatic support. Why don't we send an ambassador over and have him subtly insult their leader. Maybe make like he'd refuse to shake his hand or something. That'll provoke them into a first strike.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by hibernicus

I hope this doesn't sound like nitpicking, because I think it goes to the heart of your question. If it's not illegal, it's not murder. If it's not illegal, it's not rape. By definition. Even in your country, killing someone or having sex with someone may or may not be murder or rape, depending on circumstances and local laws. Same in Outer Madhousistan.

So it may be that what you are really looking for is examples of actions that are legal in another jurisidiction while a) illegal in your jurisdiction and b) "obviously" criminal in your judgment. Spousal rape is probably an excellent example. "Honour" killings (if they are actually legal anywhere) would be another.

(emphasis mine)

Yes, this is exactly what I am looking for and spousal rape and honor killings are good examples. I am not aware of any first-world jurisdiction where there are legal. It's much more fundamental than a local law banning fireworks where if you are unhappy with it, you can just move to a different jurisdiction where fireworks are legal and hardly anyone will point at you and tell you how immoral you must be for wanting to possess or use fireworks. I'm interested if there are any jurisdictions where such fundamental societal rules like "don't kill someone except in bona-fide self defense or on direct orders from the Government" or "don't take stuff that doesn't belong to you without the owner's permission" don't apply, or where they apply only with exceptions that would be considered unacceptable in most areas of the world, for example a society where the law permits creditors to break and enter into delinquent debtors homes to seize property to satisfy the debt or simply put a bullet in their head and collect from their estate, where convicted felons do not have human rights and it is legal (actually legal, not just tolerated in practice) to hunt them for sport and killing them does not constitute murder under local law, or where if one unmarried person forces sex on another unmarried person, it is not a crime unless the person who forced sex refuses to marry the "victim" (e.g., if J. Random HornyGuy forces sex on Suzy Innocent in the jurisdiction and Suzy complains to police, the police will ask JRH if he will marry Suzy, and if he says yes, he walks out of the police station a free man not because he has been forgiven, but because no crime cognizable under local law has been committed).

[fumster]

The OP's question is what always puzzled me about those who tout the 10 Commandments as being the basis for US law. Take away the ones that we explicitly did not make illegal (like taking God's name in vain or honoring the Sabbath) and you have pretty much the same prohibitions as any other society in the world. It's not as though Japan allows murder, or theft is legal in India.

[Doug K.]

Originally Posted by kayaker

Sounds like there should be a preemptive strike on Fredonia. Keep them in their place.

Hey! I live in Fredonia! And it's IN the United States.

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by John Mace

No, it's not. That is a inaccurate summation of what the Stand Your Ground Law says.

Feel free to add what you think is a more accurate summation.

The point is, though, that there are circumstances in which killing someone would be legal in Florida, but murder/manslaughter in Massachusetts.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Doug K.

Hey! I live in Fredonia! And it's IN the United States.

Seriously? Like what, Fredonia, Kansas?

[Filbert]

Would the situations with 'uncontacted tribes' count?


The Sentinelese Islanders have several times shot fishermen and others who came too close to their island. They are not treated as being under any external laws, and do not appear to count shooting anyone they don't like the look of as a problem.

[coremelt]

In the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan AFAIK it seems like it would not be illegal to kill someone who insulted your honor. At least under Pashtunwali (Pashtun tribal law) thats expected behavior.

However the local Jirga (tribal council) would determine if the killing was murder (in which case the victims family might have the right to get revenge by killing you) or was Badal (an honorable revenge).

[Jragon]

I learned in an anthropology course that there's an Inuit tribe somewhere where "everybody gets one" in terms of murder. You can kill one, and exactly one person with no penalty, any more and you get capital punishment. Sadly, I don't recall enough of the specifics to produce a cite.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Jragon

I learned in an anthropology course that there's an Inuit tribe somewhere where "everybody gets one" in terms of murder. You can kill one, and exactly one person with no penalty, any more and you get capital punishment. Sadly, I don't recall enough of the specifics to produce a cite.

Interesting. I'd suppose though that they are living under the jurisdiction of the US, Canada, or Greenland, and so the "everyone gets one" rule would not necessarily be accepted by the local police station or the local courts. Could a Reservation in Alaska, say, have such an exception to normal State Law regarding the offense of "Murder"? If this was the rule before European settlement, then I would say that it would count in a historic sense.

Does anyone else have a cite?

[gunnergoz]

From what I've heard, part of Afghanistan have functioned in exactly this way for generations. Some acts that would be considered crimes in most countries and cultures, are considered acceptable behavior with certain categories of others, i.e. murder and theft from parties considered outsiders or enemies of your clan is not a crime and may in fact be laudable behavior. Is it "legal" under Afghanistan law? Probably not. Is it discouraged in those particular remote provinces? Apparently not. Could an outsider come in and live under those rules? Good question and I'd guess the answer would be "no" especially if he was not Muslim. I frankly think the outsider would be considered fair game rather than welcome to try those behaviors for himself.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by coremelt

In the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan AFAIK it seems like it would not be illegal to kill someone who insulted your honor. At least under Pashtunwali (Pashtun tribal law) thats expected behavior.

However the local Jirga (tribal council) would determine if the killing was murder (in which case the victims family might have the right to get revenge by killing you) or was Badal (an honorable revenge).

That's bullshit. And as I am from that area and my mother was a political agent, yeah I woukd know.

[Doug K.]

Originally Posted by kayaker

Seriously? Like what, Fredonia, Kansas?

Yes, and yes. There are also at least a dozen more Fredonias in the country, including two in Texas.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by gunnergoz

From what I've heard, part of Afghanistan have functioned in exactly this way for generations. Some acts that would be considered crimes in most countries and cultures, are considered acceptable behavior with certain categories of others, i.e. murder and theft from parties considered outsiders or enemies of your clan is not a crime and may in fact be laudable behavior. Is it "legal" under Afghanistan law? Probably not. Is it discouraged in those particular remote provinces? Apparently not. Could an outsider come in and live under those rules? Good question and I'd guess the answer would be "no" especially if he was not Muslim. I frankly think the outsider would be considered fair game rather than welcome to try those behaviors for himself.

Hmm, is that based on anything at all? Generally Afghanis take hospitality very seriously. I suspect that a Christian visitor to an Afghanistan village would be treated better than a Muslim in the US bible belt.

[Voluble]

Originally Posted by lisiate

What war exists between the US and Yemen or Pakistan?

I think you are talking about the tribal areas that are putatively in Pakistan but effectively outside the control of the government there. In other words it is lawless territory where terrorist organizations have chosen to hide. That there are elements in the Pakistani government that wish to keep it that way is another issue entirely. You can't really declare war on a lawless territory so the US relies on the authorization of military force to go after organizations in those sorts of locations.

I think you could make a much better case for the drone killing of a US citizen without trial or warrant in Anwar Al Awlaki though a "dead or alive" warrant had been issued for him by a Yemeni judge. That does nothing to satisfy US law but it does take it out of the bounds of the OP I believe.

[Voluble]

Originally Posted by Donnerwetter

I'm certain that there is no place in the world with some sort of organised society in which murder and theft as such are legal, i. e. this is the law of the land.

Taxation being theft I think quite the opposite is true. There is probably not a jurisdiction where theft is illegal. That is if you define theft as forcibly taking one's possessions or resources against their will... which is really the only definition that makes any sense. If you rely on the legal definition then you are just begging the question since they could define theft however they like to exclude anything they wished.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

Yes, this is exactly what I am looking for and spousal rape and honor killings are good examples. I am not aware of any first-world jurisdiction where there are legal.

You do realize, though, that "spousal rape" laws are fairly recent things. They're not a result of a longstanding obvious fundamental socal rule. England and Wales made non-consensual sex with your spouse illegal in 1991, North Carolina, the last US state to do so, in 1993, and Germany in 1997. Some of the earliest states to do it were countries like the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and Poland in 1932.

So this concept that just because you're married to somebody you can't have sex with them whenever you want isn't a longstanding one. It's something that's developed within living memory, and not one of those things that's just "obvious".

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by AK84

That's bullshit. And as I am from that area and my mother was a political agent, yeah I woukd know.

cite please. Yeah I know you live in Pakistan... does the FATA areas run under Pakistan law... no they don't. Please give me a cite to the exact criminal codes they do accept?

[AK84]

Originally Posted by coremelt

cite please. Yeah I know you live in Pakistan... does the FATA areas run under Pakistan law... no they don't. Please give me a cite to the exact criminal codes they do accept?

FATA (like all territories of Pakistan) is governed directly by the President of Pakistan who exercises both executive and legislative authority and is authorised to make laws regarding the local executive, legislature and judiciary. The administration of FATA is undertaken by the FATA Secretariat. These are staffed by Civil Servants selected from the Central Superior Service . The Judicial power is based upon the FATA Tribunals and the FATA Appellate Tribunal, whose judgements can be reviewed by the I Islamabad High Court and ultimately the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The Current criminal law applicable to FATA is the Frontier Crimes Regulations.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Voluble

Taxation being theft I think quite the opposite is true. There is probably not a jurisdiction where theft is illegal. That is if you define theft as forcibly taking one's possessions or resources against their will... which is really the only definition that makes any sense. If you rely on the legal definition then you are just begging the question since they could define theft however they like to exclude anything they wished.

Tax protestor and political rhetoric aside, I'm hoping that the intent of my question is clear. We are talking about acts that are clearly considered improper both legally and socially in most areas of the world. We aren't talking about some tax protestor argument, but about fundamental societal rules. For example, is there any jurisdiction where I can just burglarize homes to my heart's content and anything I can walk off with legally becomes my property until your little sister's first boyfriend's cousin's former roommate's son's first grade teacher robs me at gunpoint and claims legal ownership of the stuff because I failed in defending it and am thus unworthy to own it?

Again, we are not talking about "tax as theft" arguments or other similar political protests. We are talking about acts that many people (though, not necessarily all) would consider to be fundamentally antisocial. Also, remember that we are talking about theoretical legality, rather than cases where an act is technically illegal but it is widely tolerated in practice by police, prosecutors, or judges.

Is the final answer going to be that there is not one single jurisdiction in all the world where it is legal to live a pirate's life, or where the "law of the jungle" is the fundamental substantive law in force in the jurisdiction?

[AK84]

In common law countries, Adverse Possession is possibly the closest you can get; even then its strictly a procedural rather than a criminal matter.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

We are talking about acts that are clearly considered improper both legally and socially in most areas of the world. We aren't talking about some tax protestor argument, but about fundamental societal rules.
...
Also, remember that we are talking about theoretical legality, rather than cases where an act is technically illegal but it is widely tolerated in practice by police, prosecutors, or judges.

Sure - state-sanctioned killing.

Most countries only allow their governments and government officers to kill their citizens in cases of great emergency, such as law enforcement officers killing the perpetrator of a crime to save an innocent third person at risk while the crime is in progress. Other than such cases, once the perpetrator has been captured and cannot harm another person, it would be murder for the state's officers to kill that person. State officers in those countries cannot kill persons in their custody. That is a fundamental societal rule, covered by the same criminal law as any other murder.

However, in some countries, the government's officers are legally authorised to kill a person in custody who has been convicted of certain crimes, even if that person does not pose any immediate threat to another person.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Sure - state-sanctioned killing.

Most countries only allow their governments and government officers to kill their citizens in cases of great emergency, such as law enforcement officers killing the perpetrator of a crime to save an innocent third person at risk while the crime is in progress. Other than such cases, once the perpetrator has been captured and cannot harm another person, it would be murder for the state's officers to kill that person. State officers in those countries cannot kill persons in their custody. That is a fundamental societal rule, covered by the same criminal law as any other murder.

However, in some countries, the government's officers are legally authorised to kill a person in custody who has been convicted of certain crimes, even if that person does not pose any immediate threat to another person.

Do you mean the Death Penalty? It's an interesting thought and I'm aware that there are many countries that do oppose it nowadays, but it has a time-honored history and it is legal in the US, used to be legal in the UK and was perfectly legal in many ancient nations like Rome. According to the Bible, God prescribed or allowed the death penalty for certain criminal offenses committed in the ancient Israelite nation or by citizens of it.

[Northern Piper]

Yes. The fact that it has a long history, may have biblical support in the past, etc. aren't really relevant to the discussion, since the question as I understood it was an actual difference in the laws. Plus, those exact same comments could apply to previously legal matters such as slavery.

[robert_columbia]

It seems that this thread may be in the process of trainwrecking into a political debate. I'm going to stop posting here for a while and am going to modify/clarify my question as such:

1) Is there any jurisdiction where it is substantively legal (not just tolerated) for a private person to arbitrarily deprive another of property, outside of normal tax collection, lawful garnishments to satisfy judgments, etc., to such an extent that private property has no protection in law whatsoever and any person wishing to keep private property must defend it personally. E.g. a jurisdiction where literally anyone can just up and walk off with your stuff and the law will not get involved because private property rights are simply not recognized outside the context of actual possession.

2) Is there any jurisdiction where it is substantively legal (not just tolerated) for a private person to arbitrarily kill another person based on their own desire, or based on the private person's belief that the target has committed an offense (i.e. an honor killing), outside of the context of self defense against imminent harm, employment as a police officer, soldier, or other official explicitly authorized to kill as part of their job, or specific governmental order directing a specific person to be killed? E.g. a jurisdiction where J. Random Citizen, a private citizen who is not a government official of any type, can privately conclude that P. Rudeface has committed adultery with Citizen's spouse and may privately put a bullet in Rudeface's head without first reporting this to the police or obtaining specific authorization to proceed with the killing because Citizen possesses the right to make the judgement call himself and execute justice without getting the police, courts, or legislature involved in determining guilt or determining the proper penalty.

3) Is there any jurisdiction where it is substantively legal (not just tolerated) to force sexual activity (I will refrain from using the word "rape" lest someone reply and claim that if it isn't illegal, it technically isn't "rape") on someone who is not one's spouse?

4) Is there any jurisdiction where the local substantive law is literally "the law of the jungle"? That is, while the area is under the sovereignty of a country, the legislature or other lawmaking body (the lawmakers themselves, not the police deciding not to investigate, prosecutors declining to prosecute, or judges declining to hear cases) has decided that the area shall not be subject to regulation.

I'm thinking that this place might be a recent historical example, but I'm not sure to what extent the lawlessness was due to a lack of substantive law and to what extent it was a practical matter related to difficulty or lack of interest in enforcement measures.

[Pyper]

Bride kidnapping still occurs throughout the world and is even on the rise in areas such as Central Asia and China. Most governments (but not all) have outlawed bride kidnapping, but it is frequently not pursued as a crime by the authorities.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

4) Is there any jurisdiction where the local substantive law is literally "the law of the jungle"? That is, while the area is under the sovereignty of a country, the legislature or other lawmaking body (the lawmakers themselves, not the police deciding not to investigate, prosecutors declining to prosecute, or judges declining to hear cases) has decided that the area shall not be subject to regulation.

What about the Amazon Jungle areas of Brazil? I know that there are areas that are set aside for the protection of "primitive" peoples. What is the legal status of such areas? Are there any law-enforcing bodies competant to investigate crimes that might occur in such areas?

[Leo Bloom]

Originally Posted by Doug K.

Hey! I live in Fredonia! And it's IN the United States.

Weren't you requested to change the name of your city, because it was hurting the picture?

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by AK84

The Current criminal law applicable to FATA is the Frontier Crimes Regulations.

Wiki says this about the Frontier Crimes Regulations, is it wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontie...es_Regulations

"It permits punishment to be meted out by unelected tribal jirgas and denies the accused the right to trial by judiciary."
"The regulation denies those convicted of an offence by a tribal jirga the right to appeal their conviction in any court."

So if your Tribal Jirga decides that your killing was actually a Badal honorable killing there is no court of appeal.