I know it’s illegal in the US to leave the country for the purpose of having sex with someone under 18, even if it would be legal in that country, and even if it would be legal here.
My girlfriend and I were discussing this, and she says it’s illegal to leave the country to do anything that would be illegal here. For example, a 19-year-old going drinking in Canada or someone going to Holland to smoke pot would face some kind of charge. Her reasoning is that since you retain your rights in other countries, you also retain your obligation to follow our laws.
I disagree with both points… when you go to another country, you abide by their laws and only theirs (except for sex, apparently). When that kid got caned in Singapore, we didn’t declare war on them. My aforementioned girlfriend was an exchange student in Japan, and she says that the teachers would smack other students but not the Americans; I say that’s because of courtesy, not law.
So what’s the scoop? What rights do you have when you travel, and when can you be punished back in the US for what you do abroad?
I dont have any awnsers but its an interesting question.
What if you were not specifically leaving the country to commit the crime but it happened while you were away? legal or nay ?
The “retain your obligation to follow our laws” slant sounds totally off. Think of the implications. Youre in the vatican and have your legally registered firearm with you…youre in france and decide that you are not going to pay the markup on cigarette taxes?
I have a conviction from one EU country and am currently faces charges in another. The conviction in the other country will have absolutly no bearing on my case in this country despite Interpol files and cooperation between the police in both states.
The question is easily highlighted by the fact that you can move from one European country to another in less than 18 minutes (helicopter capital to capital). In one country prostitution is legal , in the other its not. All the sex day trippers are then guilty of breaking their own laws?? I dont think so.
There’s nothing to stop any country passing a law which makes it an offence for its own citizens to do certain things while abroad, but there’s very little they can do to enforce it except when the person in question returns. The USA could pass a law saying that a US citizen may not have sex with a person under the age of 18, wherever they are in the world, but it could only be enforced effectively against offenders when they returned to the US.
The existence of such an extraterritorial provision would not exempt somebody from obeying the law in any country in which they found themselves. US citizens are not required (nor even permitted) to drive on the right in Britain, for example nor are they allowed to carry firearms. A US citizen who had consensual sex with a sixteen year old in Britain would not be pursued by the British authorities since it is not an offence here. What happened to him when he returned to the USA would be a matter for the US authorities.
In British law, you can be prosecuted for certain offences committed abroad, if they are offences in British law and in the law of the country in which they were alleged to have been committed.
American citizens certainly don’t “retain their rights” in other countries. Once they leave the USA, they become subject to the laws of wherever they happen to find themselves.
I think I heard on Dateline NBC or some such program about an Australian man who made frequent trips to Thailand (or some such place where police tend to look the other way at child prostitution). Apparently, the Australian authorities locked the guy up for a very long time. Needless to say, the guy is a little outraged. His defense is that he’s never done anything to any Australian kid, and the Thai (or whatever) authorities don’t seem to give a damn, so it’s nobody’s business but his own.
This is a complex area of the law and cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs. Every country differs but we can say that general rules have evolved.
In general a person is always subject to all the laws of the land where he is. No law from your caountry of nationality can exempt you from obeying the laws of another country. (There are limited exemptions for diplomats etc).
In general, a person is not obliged by the laws of his country of nationality when he is abroad but this is only by convention and there is nothing to stop your country of nationality from saying certain laws will apply to its citizens anywhere in the world (or even non-citizens). Whether they can enforce them is another matter.
Countries generally extend their jurisdiction to the high seas always to vessels of their registry and under limited circumstances to all vessels.
Alsdo it is common that countries will act to protect its citizens abroad so, say a citizen of country X commits a crime against a fellow countryman in another country Y. Normally the laws of Y would apply but if Y does not prosecute or does not consider it a crime, then X may have laws which may allow it to prosecute the criminal. Normally this is limited to crimes where the victim is also a national of the same country.
Due to the increase in travel for the purpose of having sex with children and, in order to protect children everywhere, some countries are passing laws that make it a crime to do so even in a foreign country.
Note also that American Citizens are required to pay income tax on income generated abroad.
Note that part of the problem is investigating and prosecuting these acts. I know there are ONGs which are investigating and helping authorities prosecute sex with minors. I remember a case of some German guy in the Philippines who was jailed for that after a lot of work by an NGO in both countries.
Another obvious case where a citized is subject to the jurisdiction of his country of nationality even if he is abroad is in aiding the enemy in time of war. It is not a crime for a foreigner to fight against the US but it is a crime for a US citizen to do it.
There was a case in Ireland, I believe, where a young girl who was pregnant was prevented (or the court tried to prevent) from leaving the country to have an abortion.
Let’s face it, Child Sex Tourism is just plain sick. How countries desperate for money would permit their own children to be taken advantage of is just plain repugnant. I support efforts to reduce this particular trade, but I think prosecuting US citizens in the US for US crimes committed abroad is wrong as well. The ends do not justify the means.
For example, when I visited London and Paris as a teenager, I drank alcohol. Heck I was just on the plane for Paris and already the stewardess was serving me alcohol. Should the government be permitted to test me for alcohol at customs and prosecute my parents or me?
The fact is that governments are picking individuals and making a point to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. They have no way of tracking down the thousands of people who fund Child Sex Tourism, so they find one person and make a big dog and pony show out of it. Now all the pedophiles are supposed to fear the government because they’ll prosecute you. If prosecution actually stopped crime, we would live in a crime free society. Heck, a death penalty doesn’t even stop murder.
Personally rather than use the stick approach, I believe that our interests can be better served by helping these nations understand the implications of supporting Child Sex Tourism. We should support methods whereby a nation doesn’t have to sacrifice its young people to make a buck. I also think that we should do more to help pedophiles in coping with their mental illness.
well, as long as we are talking about depressing stuff I will say I find it just as depressing to know there are children slave working 16 hour days in sweatshops. I do not think this is any better for them than engaging in sex for money.
I would also point out that in western countries sex with minors is considered shamful and this causes trauma in the child. Arab and other cultures found it normal for men to surround themselves with young boys and girls and this was no cause for shame. I would think those children would not have the trauma they might have in western countries.
There was a study not too long ago that came to the conclusion that child molestation did not have such awful effects as was being said. While many victims do develop traume, many others don’t. Bill Maher talked about this study and how it was being attacked histerically and unscientifically.
At any rate, this is a very complex problem. I would say the community of nations should work on international solutions to this which would work in many fronts.
It is true that it is cynical to just say it is wrong but do nothing to address the root causes. A family in asia may get to eat that day if their daughter or son has sex with some dirty gwailo. They obviously prefer to do it or else they would not do it. If we are so quick to condemn who of us will send the money to feed them so they will not have to do it?
I remember a documentary on PBS about prostitution on Burma (IIRC) and it was just depressing. Young women enslaved and chained to their beds and enduring lines of men who’d screw them in no time and move on. Do they have to be underage for this to make you sick to the stomach? That is life today in much of Asia and Africa. And it makes me sick but I cannot condemn because I do not have any solution. Just prohibiting things is cynical, you have to address the underlying causes.
There was a time when you didn’t even have to leave the country to fall foul of odd jurisdictional laws. Around about 1980 I was living in Missouri which had just increased the drinking age to 21. Just across the river in Kansas it was still 18. So I could go to Kansas for a legal drink, but get busted once I got home for being under age and drunk.
there was a 60 minutes program about kids who every weekend cross the border into Mexico by the hundreds and by the thousands to get drunk. Some groups have taken to standing at the border and handing them information trying to discourage them.
The kids go to Mexico to avoid US laws and there they are often the subject of crimes. They lose their wallets or get into fights and girls are raped. Then they do not understand why the US does not do something (like what? Invade mexico?)
I have to chirp in here to point out this quote in the OP:
“Her reasoning is that since you retain your rights in other countries, you also retain your obligation to follow our laws.”
You absolutely do not retain your domestic rights in other countries. I think that, other than specifically legislated instances such as the new foreign underage sex laws and the American corruption of foreign officials act and the Canadian foreign corrupt practices act, you are entirely subject to the laws of the country you are visiting.
Try exercising your freedom of speech by getting on a soapbox and speaking about democracy in Tianamin Square in Beijing or going to Karachi as a Christian missionary and try and convert some moslems.
Get arrested and try to demand a lawyer and remain silent in about a hundred different countries.
The fact is, American or not, if you get thrown in the slammer in a lot of countries there is very little your diplomatic corp can do for you.
Thanks for the replies. I do realize you don’t retain your rights in other countries… I’m not a big fan of Mexico.
Perhaps my question wasn’t clear enough, though. Are there any other laws in the US that make it illegal for a citizen to do something in another country that is legal there but not here?
As mentioned, there is a law forbidding American citizens from leaving the country with “intent” to have sex with a minor, regardless of whether it’s legal in that other country or not. I think it’s a federal law, too. Let me see if I can find a reference…
Certainly a law such as that would pass both houses without a fight, despite its clear violations of sovereignty principle and jurisdicion, because not even a libertarian politician would dare oppose it and appear “pro-child sex tourism.” Similarly our draconian drug laws passed without adequate review of civil liberty implications.
One bit of evidence that the US law against folks leaving town to have illegal sex is that several tour companies which specialize in catering to men who want to do just that are not legally permitted to operate in the US, or any country with such laws.
Sure are. According to my American cigar-smoking friends, the US Trading With The Enemies Act prevents them from purchasing Cuban cigars when they come to visit us in Canada.
We have plenty of Cuban cigars available legally here (though they are quite expensive), but my American friends are not supposed to buy any; the idea being to prevent American money from supporting Castro through the purchase of Cuban goods.
However, it comes down to a question of what US authorities can do about it. They obviously cannot arrest my friends as they emerge from a Toronto tobacconist with their purchases, and if my friends smoke their cigars here, how are the US authorities to know? Needless to say, my friends buy them anyway when they visit.