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.
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.
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?
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.
That literally is the system in place.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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)?.
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.
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.
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.
And yet y’all have been doing it for decades.
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.
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.
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/world/europe/harry-dunn-crash-us-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.
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.
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.