I’m not completely convinced about the second part of your argument. I’m well aware of the history of diplomatic immunity, and i understand the reasons that it was implemented.
But it seems to me, in the modern world, that there should be mechanisms whereby countries that are perennially on amicable terms, and that have decent legal and criminal justice systems, should be able to come to a mutual agreement that they will waive diplomatic immunity with one another.
For example, it seems to me that the relationships between the US and Britain, or between the US and Australia, or between the US and Japan, are strong and friendly enough that diplomats from those countries who commit crimes in their host nation could be charged without undermining international relations.
Take the case posted by Aspidistra. One douchebag American attache allegedly committed assault in New Zealand. It seems to me that allowing the Kiwis to prosecute this guy need not compromise relations between the two countries, and i doubt anyone who try to make a case that he was being prosecuted so that New Zealand could embarrass the US or gain some sort of upper hand in the diplomatic chess game.
I’m just not convinced that diplomatic immunity needs to be as extensive as it currently is.
I’m not sure about other countries, but I can’t imagine the US ever agreeing to such an arrangement. So the alternative is not some other system, but a diminution of diplomacy itself. I do believe, though, that no Western European country would agree to such an arrangement with the US that did not exclude capital offenses-- which, as I understand our legal system today, is limited to murder. And what about “life without possibility of parole”? Is that something that any country other than Norway doesn’t have?
The RCC has been enabling and protecting child abusers for a long, long time, long before there was a Trump. It has always had its indoctrinated (or intimidated) believers and excusers and deniers and special-arguers and Jesuitical pettifoggers, too, although there are not nearly so many left as in previous generations. Why there are *any *still looking to them for moral leadership remains a mystery, of course.
You will note the words “American authorities.” “They,” by which I think you mean the Catholic Church, would have no say in the matter. There would be an investigation and if the DA felt they had a case, it would go to trial. I don’t know the details in Law’s case–My understanding is he didn’t molest children himself, but enabled and covered up for molesters–but pedophile priests have been convicted in the US.
And no, I don’t think it is a misdirection to call this person a diplomat, since that is what he was and why the Vatican can invoke diplomatic immunity.
I was asking what trial he’ll receive back in the Vatican. The answer is, of course, none; he’s getting protection and haven instead.
Any diplomatic status he has is the residue of the organization’s anachronistic nation-state status, enjoyed by no other church or even secular institution. His (alleged) actions were, in any case, *not *related to any such official duties or status, the reason diplomatic immunity exists.
Countries would presumably only be on such good terms if they had a great deal of trust in each others’ justice systems. And if they have such trust in each others’ justice systems, then there would be no need to waive diplomatic immunity, because they would expect that a misbehaving diplomat would be put on trial by his own home country. In other words, what the Vatican is starting to do here.
Will it be a fair trial? That remains to be seen. If it begins to look like it won’t be, then you’ll be perfectly justified in this pitting. But if it is, then you’re complaining about them doing exactly the thing that you’re complaining that they don’t do.
Yeah, they’re gonna be back-slapping, breaking out the cigars and partying all night at having put it over those dumb Americanos… Then they’ll smuggle him to Argentina.
Well, it comes in useful for them on occasions like these.
Sure, let’s have Venezuela (or wherever) accuse American diplomats of child abuse and refuse to honour diplomatic immunity, because America refuses to honour diplomatic immunity for allegations of that crime.
We already do: we ask the ambassador to waive immunity.
BTW once the diplomat is back in their country, can we ask for their extradition?