Straight Dope Message Board

[Gray Ghost]

Originally Posted by mandala

Sounds like murder to me.

Stopping an attempted armed robbery is murder now? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised that it's a viewpoint here. Anything to show some equivalency between US diplomats and the criminal foreign diplomats I mentioned up-thread.

I don't read where the other motorcyclist attempted to give himself up, merely that he ran away. Or as I think Davis viewed it, "retreating to a better firing position." Anchor shooting them was poor form then, though conceivably OK these days, if he felt it was a bombing attack against him, and not a mere robbery.

It's a bad example of diplomatic immunity anyway, as Davis was held by the authorities, and released only after paying the relevant penalty. 51

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum

You see no connection at all? Really? Or you just really need to get what I'm saying offa your little "discussion" board here. Straight Dope? Really?

Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum

It would be murder here, would it not? Depending of course upon one's race and socioeconomic status.

This is a warning for failure to follow a moderator's instructions. The previous instruction remains in effect. I recommend you do not continue to violate the rules of this board.

[/moderating] 52

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by mandala

The US does not waive diplomatic immunity even in cases of cold-blooded murder, so it is extremely unlikely this incident will be prosecuted. After all, it was apparently only an accident.

Accident? Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence. You can't just drive on the wrong side of the road and go 'oops' when you kill someone because of it. Dangerous driving is not an accident, it's a deliberate or reckless act. 53

[Saint Cad]

She should face the penalty. After all it is only $87.50 per person killed. 54

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by SanVito

Accident? Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence. You can't just drive on the wrong side of the road and go 'oops' when you kill someone because of it. Dangerous driving is not an accident, it's a deliberate or reckless act.

Well, that, or an outcome of fatigue and living in a country where they drive on a different side of the road than you spent the last few decades driving on. That sort of wrong-side driving happens sometimes to Brits driving in drive-on-the-right countries, too. I don't know the exact circumstances of this accident so I can't say if that was a factor or not in this particular case.

Nor does it excuse anything. It's still wrong. The difference is in the motivation: carelessness, not deliberate malice. I think most of us would argue there should still be penalties, but we might allow some mitigation of the penalties assessed, particularly if the guilty party were cooperative with the legal process.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where no matter how much the guilty party wants to cooperate other factors (international diplomacy and powerful governments) would prevent that.

Even so - it never hurts to ask for immunity of this sort to be waived. For all we know the woman is doing that even as we speak. Or maybe not - we have no way to know. 55

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by eschrodinger

I'm sure the reason it doesn't work that way is that it would be easy for a foreign government to hold sufficient leverage over a person to make them waive and travel back. The prosecuting government could say, e.g., go home, then waive and come back or we will lock up/execute all of your friends here.

A fair, and depressing, point to make. 56

[casdave]

There really should be some mechanism whereby the UK can apply for judicial extradition in the same way that any other US citizen can be extradited,.

It would then be for the UK to provide evidence that would satisfy the US courts that this would be appropriate.

We don't know the full facts of the case, why did she do a runner having already been interviewed? I wonder if there is any possibility that she was drunk driving or under the influence of drugs because it seems one heck of an oversight on her part to forgetfully drive on the wrong side of the road - methinks there is more to this than meets the eye and that's why she has gone on the run.

The alternative is for her to be brought before US courts and prosecuted there, we already do this for certain crimes across international jurisdictions - such as for crimes against humanity. 57

[Declan]

Originally Posted by SanVito

This getting any airplay in the US? Because it's even knocked Brexit off the national news here. Chief Constable of Police demands suspect's return to the UK (BBC Link)



Reports say she was driving for some distance on the wrong side of the road. The victim came over the brow of a hill and so had no opportunity to avoid her car.

So, she has claimed diplomatic immunity and scuttled off home, which of course she can. But should the US do something? Send her back? Prosecute her at home? Give compensation to the victim's family? Stick two fingers up to them?

For reference, sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving (and I'm no lawyer), are:

Its weird cause everyone has been calling her the diplomatic wife. She has some connection with the state department, but hubby is a contractor on an airforce base. 58

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Declan

Its weird cause everyone has been calling her the diplomatic wife. She has some connection with the state department, but hubby is a contractor on an airforce base.

RAF Croughton is a major comms hub. A "contractor" at a location like that - well who knows what their real job is. 59

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by SanVito

Accident? Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence. You can't just drive on the wrong side of the road and go 'oops' when you kill someone because of it. Dangerous driving is not an accident, it's a deliberate or reckless act.

A negative consequence of recklessness or negligence is an accident. I suppose it could have been a deliberate act, in which case it wasn't an accident, but that seems pretty unlikely. 60

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by SanVito

Divided by a common language indeed. 'Helping Police with their enquires', doesn't literally mean she's there spoon-feeding them important information. It's Police PR code for 'been hauled in for questioning'. She could have sat in a Police interview in total silence for all we know.

Maybe, but I've now seen several interviews with representatives of the family, and they didn't seem to want her to sit in a police interview while refusing to answer questions, they clearly wanted her to answer questions to give them closure. One of them even floated the idea of a meeting between the woman and the family. And that may well be helpful to them, but diplomatic immunity isn't really what's stopping that from happening. 61

[Baboonanza]

Honestly I think she would have got off reasonably lightly had she stayed in the country and shown adequate contrition on the basis that while it is dangerous driving it's obviously a mistake anyone could make. Now if they can get her back they should throw the book at her. 62

[BigT]

It just seems ridiculous that the system could be set up this way. Why would you set it up where some people are completely above the law, and thus incentivize those who want to break the law to become diplomats? Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?

This still gets rid of the major problems of either retaliation or horrible laws, but doesn't let the diplomat get away with these horrible acts.

Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat? 63

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Baboonanza

Honestly I think she would have got off reasonably lightly had she stayed in the country and shown adequate contrition on the basis that while it is dangerous driving it's obviously a mistake anyone could make. Now if they can get her back they should throw the book at her.

What if she did not have a choice about leaving? About the only thing a country can do with someone with diplomatic immunity who breaks the law is expel the person.

And... if the attitude it now "throw the book at her" regardless of anything else I would think that would guarantee that not only would she try to waive immunity (if she has any choice about it at all) but will never set foot in the UK ever again. 64

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by BigT

Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?

That literally is the system in place.

Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat?

Immunity applies to all actions by diplomats. There’s been cases of diplomats literally engaging in murder and not being prosecuted (like the Libyan who shot a London cop from the window of his embassy in the early 1980s). A diplomat is someone that the receiving country approves to be in their country and enjoy immunity. Countries can’t just send diplomats into a country to enjoy immunity without the approval of the receiving country. 65

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by BigT

It just seems ridiculous that the system could be set up this way. Why would you set it up where some people are completely above the law, and thus incentivize those who want to break the law to become diplomats? Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?

This still gets rid of the major problems of either retaliation or horrible laws, but doesn't let the diplomat get away with these horrible acts.

Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat?

For a quite primer on diplomatic immunity, from ancient history to the treaty setting up the modern system with a detour into abuses and problems check out this wiki

I think part of the problem is that there are people/cultures in this world who see nothing wrong with exploiting others, abusing employees/servants, sexually molesting those with less power, and/or are amoral people who, with no threat of penalty over their heads, can't behave themselves in a civilized manner. If the country issuing the diplomatic credentials reins them in that helps reduce the abuses, but if the issuing nation doesn't, well, it's very ugly. 66

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by Baboonanza

Honestly I think she would have got off reasonably lightly had she stayed in the country and shown adequate contrition on the basis that while it is dangerous driving it's obviously a mistake anyone could make. Now if they can get her back they should throw the book at her.

I think you're underplaying the crime of Dangerous Driving. We have lesser driving offences, such as 'Careless or Inconsiderate Driving', because of course people have momentary lapses in concentration. But there's no getting away from the fact that driving is a responsibility, and driving for several hundred yards on the wrong side of the road falls short of the standard we expect of all drivers, as stipulated by the Crown Prosecution Srvice:

The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous – section 2A of the RTA 1988.

Whether that act is caused by maliciousness, or falling far short of the concentration levels we expect of someone driving a dangerous weapon, is neither here nor there. 67

[Baboonanza]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

What if she did not have a choice about leaving? About the only thing a country can do with someone with diplomatic immunity who breaks the law is expel the person.

That's conjecture, there is no evidence that she was forced to leave by the UK authorities though I would expect any lawyer would probably have told her to leave ASAP.

And... if the attitude it now "throw the book at her" regardless of anything else I would think that would guarantee that not only would she try to waive immunity (if she has any choice about it at all) but will never set foot in the UK ever again.

Perhaps, but she did essentially flee the country after a crime. If she comes back willingly I would expect that to be considered but why should the courts treat her any differently from another criminal who flees prosecution (beside the political implications)?. 68

[Broomstick]

One problem with this whole situation is that none of us actually know all the details. There does seem to be rising anger at this woman (who, yes, does bear some guilt as far as I can tell) that really should be directed at a system, that is, diplomatic immunity and its potential abuses. "Throwing the book at" this woman due to anger at that system is not going to change that system. 69

[Baboonanza]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

One problem with this whole situation is that none of us actually know all the details. There does seem to be rising anger at this woman (who, yes, does bear some guilt as far as I can tell) that really should be directed at a system, that is, diplomatic immunity and its potential abuses. "Throwing the book at" this woman due to anger at that system is not going to change that system.

That's a valid point. I would say that just because a system can be abused doesn't mean it has to be abused.

If the woman had stayed in the country to make herself available to the police she likely would still have escaped prosecution and there wouldn't be this outcry. That would have been a more debatable 'abuse' that could be put aside by most people as just the way things are sometimes. Leaving the country is a lot more provocative. 70

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Baboonanza

If the woman had stayed in the country to make herself available to the police she likely would still have escaped prosecution and there wouldn't be this outcry.

She would have escaped prosecution no matter what; she had diplomatic immunity at the time of the crime. There's literally nothing the police can do unless the US government waives it. She could have stayed and answered more questions, but she was never going to be charged. 71

[Broomstick]

The thing is, recalling such a diplomat post-crime to the country of origin is standard operating procedure world-wide - a recall done by the diplomat's country. If she was ordered to return to the US should she have disobeyed her home country? Is that what you're expecting/wanting? 72

[Baboonanza]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

The thing is, recalling such a diplomat post-crime to the country of origin is standard operating procedure world-wide - a recall done by the diplomat's country. If she was ordered to return to the US should she have disobeyed her home country? Is that what you're expecting/wanting?

As you say, we don't have all the facts. If she was ordered back I think it was the wrong decision yes but obviously I can't blame her for following orders.

It's important that this didn't happen in Russia or another nation inimicable to the US, it happened in the UK, a close ally, and should have been handled in a more sensitive manner.

Having said all that, if I was in her position I might have buggered off too. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do. 73

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by SanVito

Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence.

And yet y'all have been doing it for decades. 74

[GreenWyvern]

Harry Dunn death: Anne Sacoolas's husband 'not registered as diplomat'

But...

US staff, including civilian staff and their dependents, at designated military bases in the UK, including RAF Croughton, are protected under the Visiting Forces Act 1952, reinforced by further legislation in 1964. They are able to claim some legal immunity in the UK.

Broadly, UK courts do not have primary jurisdiction where the offence “arose out of and in the course of the service personnel’s duties as a member of the visiting force”. At issue is the definition of the phrase “course of duty”.

The US air force as a matter of principle maintains that its service personnel remain on duty while travelling between their base station and home address. This might cover Anne Sacoolas’s intended destination.

If this was the case, the US would produce a section 11 legal certificate stating an individual had immunity from prosecution in UK courts.

However, CPS guidance on the issue of service personnel on UK roads states: “Such cases should be looked at carefully to see if this is sustainable. In appropriate cases where evidence to rebut this status is available (eg a long break in the journey/significant diversion from most direct route) consideration should be given to challenging a section 11 certificate issued by the service authority.”

The visiting force then has to produce a certificate setting out why the individual was carrying out professional duties. Normally a waiver is issued, but on the condition of a commitment that the individual will be tried in their own national court.

75

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

The thing is, recalling such a diplomat post-crime to the country of origin is standard operating procedure world-wide - a recall done by the diplomat's country. If she was ordered to return to the US should she have disobeyed her home country? Is that what you're expecting/wanting?

It's certainly not what I was expecting. If you read my OP, I was more interested in the US response, given this was an offence committed in the country of a strong ally. 76

[Broomstick]

Well... it's certainly getting airplay on TV.... hard to say what the "US response" is. I can tell you what MY response is, but I wouldn't extrapolate it to everyone else in the country. 77

[Elendil's Heir]

Yes, it's getting some coverage over here. Prime Minister Johnson has said he'll ask President Trump directly to waive extradition: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/w...s-suspect.html

I think we should send her back. Waiving extradition would show that the US considers itself bound by the rule of law and will not always be the one demanding extradition from other countries (maybe we could trade her for Julian Assange?). The UK has respected, fair and independent courts in which she would get a fair trial. The UK is an invaluable ally of the US. Trump seems to really admire BoJo.

So of course the US will refuse extradition. 78

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by BigT

It just seems ridiculous that the system could be set up this way. Why would you set it up where some people are completely above the law, and thus incentivize those who want to break the law to become diplomats? Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?

This still gets rid of the major problems of either retaliation or horrible laws, but doesn't let the diplomat get away with these horrible acts.

Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat?

The system is in place because world peace demands we have diplomats--actual people on the ground who can speak for their government. Civilians. But it's a really fucking dangerous job. Maybe not in the UK, but in lots of times and places, being a diplomat meant risking waking up one morning the legal representative of a nation that you was at war with the nation you are currently living in.

Diplomats need the security of extraordinary protections. I mean, seriously, if you were from a Muslim-majority country and assigned to be a diplomat in the US, would you be totally sanguine that Trump wouldn't have you or your wife or your kid arrested on bullshit charges if he was unhappy with your government? I wouldn't. 79

[mandala]

I think the entire system is meant to facilitate nations to spy upon each other in relatively controlled settings. If the US and the former USSR had dispensed with diplomatic immunity for each others' diplomats during the Cold War, a lot of them would have been killed or arrested, and the nations could have spiraled into war. It's a sort of pressure release mechanism. The US stations CIA Station Chiefs in countries of interest; were it not for diplomatic immunity, which country will tolerate that?

The UK has played this game too long and too well to not know that the US does not make exceptions to this policy. 80

[Peter Morris]

Bricker's staff report on Diplomatic Immunity.

First and foremost, the diplomat is still covered by the laws of his home country, and may be prosecuted under those laws for any crimes he commits in the host country .... To emphasize, under no circumstances is the diplomat free from all legal constraints: even if his host country can’t get him, his home country always can.

So, USA probably won't waive immunity for her, but possibly could prosecute her themselves. I hope this is what happens, but somehow I doubt it. 81

[bengangmo]

This case might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_S...lomat_incident

Romanian diplomat kills pedestrians in Singapore, gets tried and convicted in Romania, dies in prison 82

[MarvinKitFox]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

This case might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_S...lomat_incident

Romanian diplomat kills pedestrians in Singapore, gets tried and convicted in Romania, dies in prison

Yep.

Here is what SHOULD happen:
She should be tried (and almost certainly convicted) on two charges:
1) Negligent homicide.
2) Making a false police statement. She did, in writing, confirm that she would not be leaving the UK. Then, with no notice, she just upped and left. 83

[CarnalK]

If she signed some promise to return, that could be a charge but I have a hard time believing an unfulfilled promise is "giving a false police statement". 84

[puzzlegal]

Yeah, it would be reasonable to try her for negligent homicide, but I can't see a charge of "making false statements to police". 85

[Ravenman]

This is starting to remind me of a long-ago crazy ex-girlfriend: “It’s not that you killed somebody — I’m mad that you lied about it!!” 86

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

(maybe we could trade her for Julian Assange?). [...] Trump seems to really admire BoJo.

And here is a great reason why the US should just stick with established policy. You may think a prisoner exchange to help out Johnson and Trump's approval ratings is a good idea but I don't. 87

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by MarvinKitFox

Yep.

Here is what SHOULD happen:
She should be tried (and almost certainly convicted) on two charges:
1) Negligent homicide.
2) Making a false police statement. She did, in writing, confirm that she would not be leaving the UK. Then, with no notice, she just upped and left.

"Making a false police statement" means falsely accusing someone else of a crime, not just saying something to the police that isn't true. In England and Wales, it can also mean falsely claiming to have knowledge relevant to a crime. 88

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by SanVito

...

Reports say she was driving for some distance on the wrong side of the road. The victim came over the brow of a hill and so had no opportunity to avoid her car.

So, she has claimed diplomatic immunity and scuttled off home, which of course she can. But should the US do something? Send her back? Prosecute her at home? ...

I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.

She will likely lose her job. And the USA should write a check. 89

[Jackmannii]

I can't believe the fuss over this matter, when there's such a simple and effective way of dealing with it. 90

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Bricker's staff report on Diplomatic Immunity.

First and foremost, the diplomat is still covered by the laws of his home country, and may be prosecuted under those laws for any crimes he commits in the host country .... To emphasize, under no circumstances is the diplomat free from all legal constraints: even if his host country can’t get him, his home country always can.

So, USA probably won't waive immunity for her, but possibly could prosecute her themselves. I hope this is what happens, but somehow I doubt it.

Could they though? What federal law did she break? Can she be prosecuted by her home state? 91

[casdave]

I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.

You need to look up the term 'reasonably forseeable' when you consider negligence, negligence can be plenty criminal especially when evaluating the balance between cost, and sacrifice vs the need to ensure the safety of people. There are many cases of negligence that result in death and prison, and thats why courts will determine when this should be the case

How do you know this was an accident?

Do you know if she had any substances in her?

Do you know if she was speeding?

Do you know if she had a driving licence and insurance?

Do you know if she was fit to drive without glasses?

Do you know if she has been given other police warnings for poor driving or speeding?

Do you know if she was using her mobile phone?

In other words, it is not for your personal opinion to judge if an incident is actually an accident, do you believe that we in the UK are somehow not capable of determining this for ourselves and acting accordingly?

We do not pass and enact specific legislation in order to please you, neither does the USA do the same for us, however its reasonable to imagine that we have enough principle in common to have largely similar expectations of our respective legal systems, your criticism of the UK criminal justice system is at the very least uninformed and patronising, its as if you believe we are some third world podunk nation that is unable to meet your exacting requirements 92

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.

Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence. 93

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.

Was there some nefarious purpose behind driving on the wrong side of the road? I doubt she was intending to hurt someone or was deliberately driving on the wrong side for thrills.

I'm ok with people being imprisoned for egregious negligence such as this, but I'd still use the word to describe the crash, rather than force fit the circumstance to a different word. 94

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.

I may have missed something -- was this woman driving on the wrong side of the road for miles? The only thing I saw with specifics of the accident was that it was 400 yards from the base, and the innocent young man just came around a bend when he was struck. I just assumed from that description that the woman had exited the base and driven for a short distance (and of course I have no idea why she would be driving on the wrong side of the road, whether it was her first time on a British road, if she was overtaking someone, if she was intoxicated, or whatever -- I 'm not inclined to guess why). 95

[TruCelt]

In Washington, DC, when something happens to a car while it's under the care of a valet parking service, the valet employees are instructed to say that the damage was done by a car with diplomat tags. The police come, they write down the damage, and as soon as they hear "Diplomat Tags" they tear off the sheet and good luck even getting a report for your insurance company. This happened to me in the late 90's.

Nobody bothers to write a ticket or tow a car with diplomat tags.

Whatever our frustration with the process, it is steeped in necessity and is by no means a mere job benefit. The vast majority of the diplomats and their families take their behavior here very seriously, and treat everyone with the utmost respect.

While no one can give them their son back, I'm certain that the US will reimburse them for whatever damages can be justified under UK law. And I'm certain they will receive the profoundest apologies that this diplomat and his wife can present.

But the US President's current "Investigate 'em!!" approach to political maneuvering should be all that is needed to defend the necessity of diplomatic immunity. 96

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.

"Reports say she was driving for some distance on the wrong side of the road." I don't know if "some distance" constitutes feet, miles, or furlongs. 97

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.

Well, everyone in Britain does it all the time!

Did she mean or want to hurt or kill anyone? Did she have any criminal intent?

If the answer is no, then no jail. 98

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I may have missed something -- was this woman driving on the wrong side of the road for miles? The only thing I saw with specifics of the accident was that it was 400 yards from the base, and the innocent young man just came around a bend when he was struck. I just assumed from that description that the woman had exited the base and driven for a short distance (and of course I have no idea why she would be driving on the wrong side of the road, whether it was her first time on a British road, if she was overtaking someone, if she was intoxicated, or whatever -- I 'm not inclined to guess why).

Please god someone tell me they drive on the left in the base even though it's American. 99

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.

She will likely lose her job. And the USA should write a check.

You don't think dangerous driving is criminal? This wasn't a momentary lapse of concentration 100