Oh, please tell me what makes that seem uninformed to you.
Before we get out the rope here, remember quite possibly no felony was committed. There was a tragic *accident. *
Very rarely do Looten Plunder, Doctor Blight and Duke Nukem go to jail, there’s usually just fines. But *knowingly and willfully *is the equivalent of intent, imho.
Yes. Burress only got jail tiem due to "*The situation got ugly for Burress because he didn’t have a license to be carrying a gun in New York, and carrying an unlicensed firearm in the state called for mandatory jail time. *
Maybe.
Two points:
-
I’m just exploring options to see if there is a way to reconcile diplomatic immunity with personal responsibility, by charges in the US court system. So far, that doesn’t seem to be a possibility in this case, but possibly changes in the law could be made to allow it in future cases.
-
We don’t know if a crime was committed, or if this was just a tragic accident. That’s what police investigations and court trials are designed to determine. It’s not a question of “getting out a rope” to say that’s there should be a way to have the matter determined in court, via due process.
The problem with setting up some Diplomat Justice System is the llegalities, logistics and expense can be prohibitive. Do you move a full court to the scene of the crime or do you fly all the witnesses to America? This DJS will have no authority over foreign nationals so how will you compel witnesses to appear, deal with perjury or contempt of court?
That’s what Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties are for. In a world with so much international mobility, countries have entered into treaties, which they them implement by domestic laws, to ensure that allegations of criminal behaviour can be fully investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted. The U.K. can enact legislation that would allow a foreign subpoena to be adopted and enforced via the UK courts. Yes, it’s cumbersome, but it’s better than just shrugging shoulders and saying 'She fled the jurisdiction to the US. Nothing we can do now."
See the fact sheet on the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance Act. Canada will help gather evidence in Canada for crimes that are being prosecuted in another country, and can require Canadians to appear as witnesses in foreign courts, via video links. It’s under court supervision, so there is due process, but means already exist to do thus type of prosecution. The diplomatic bit is just an odd twist.
I didn’t think Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties were used to compell witnesses or anything at all like that. I thought was mostly information sharing and maybe locking down suspicious bank accounts.
And she didn’t flee the jurisdiction by normal standards because she was completely free to leave. “There’s nothing we can do” would have been the answer if she was still in the UK.
Eta: from your link:
So, that wouldn’t work in this case. I’ll have to read further to see how it would go if the Canadian was a defendant.
Myy mistake, that was for non-treaty countries. Ignore my eta.
If there were an American charged it’s a crime in the US, the MLAT could be used to compel a Canadian witness to testify by video link.
By extension, if there were a way to charge and try a US diplomat in US courts for a crime committed in a foreign country, an MLAT could be used to have witnesses from that foreign country testify by video in thebUS proceedings.
I’m aware of one case where a witness in Siberia testified by telephone in a civil case in Canada. It can be done.
I’m incredibly uneasy about the government extending its jurisdiction outside the bounds of its own country even if it sounds like a super moral thing.
But these treaties don’t give a country power to act outside its own boundaries. MLATs don’t give the FBI the power to operate outside the US, or the Mounties to operate outside Canada. Rather they give the LEO of one country the power to ask for assistance from LEOs in another country, but under the laws of the second country, and only through court supervision where it starts to affect Individual rights.
So if the FBI thinks Bob American is running a cross-border drug ring with Doug Canadian, the FBI can approach the Mounties and say “we think there’s a cross-border drug ring. Can we work together to investigate it? Here’s what we’ve got on it already.”
And the Mounties may say "first we’ve heard of it. We’ll start looking. ". Or they might say “Aha! We’ve had our eye on Doug Canadian for a while. This is another piece in the puzzle! Here’s what we’ve got.”
But, any investigations on the US side have to be done by the FBI and US LEOs, consistently with US constitutional law and criminal procedure, as well as the treaty, all of which have due process built in.
And investigations on the Canadian side have to be done by the Mounties and Canadian LEOs, consistently with the Charter, the Criminal Code, and the treaty, again with due process built in.
It’s sort of like an investigation version of extradition, at an earlier stage, but under the laws of each country.
My suggestion for prosecution in US courts could be seen as an assertion of US power over events outside the US, but that can already happen now, in a cross-border crime. Just ask Noriega. And the proposal does balance the principle of diplomatic immunity, which is crucially important, with the principle that an individual alleged to have committed a crime should be called to account, if the evidence is strong enough.
Investigation is really different than compelling Canadians to participate in a foreign trial.
I would be against anything like a Diplomat Justice System. If we’re going to do something to punish diplomats’ misbehavior, it should be through treaties that resemble an extradition agreement to waive immunity between trusted countries.
But as far as international treaties go, this is waaay down my list. A tragic traffic accident doesn’t even approach getting me worked up about it.
Eta: Noriega? That has to be the worst example to bring up to promote international criminal investigation cooperation.
For the car accident, no criminal intent. She made a simple mistake.
But for telling police that she would remaining the UK and available for the investigation, then absconding to the US to excape prosecution.
HELL YES, there was criminal intent there.
She may have used a legal channel to do so, but there is no mistaking that she was fleeing justice.
We have an offence of “careless driving”. That would seem, by definition, not to require criminal intent, but lack of intent doesn’t limit culpability, hence causing death by careless driving can carry a heavy penalty:
Here’s the post in question.
It’s got nothing to do with “disregarding diplomatic immunity.” The US has the authority to waive immunity, as was explained in the thread already.
She was likely advised to do so, so no intent. And there was no “prosecution” to “escape”.
And since the police have no interesting in arresting her, just asking questions (which they can do by phone or get a notarized statement) then she wasnt’ “fleeing justice”. I am not sure how the UK system works, but at least in the uSA you dont have to tell the police anything at all beyond simple ID, nor answer any questions.
Sure the local authorities would like her to be available for questioning, but afaik, they have no ability to compel her.
She did nothing wrong, no crime was committed.
Sacoolas had only been in the U.K. for three weeks…She has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing at this point…According to Sky News, someone on the American side told Sacoolas to leave Britain…
*The police went back again Sept. 15 to place Sacoolas under formal questioning in a wrongful death inquiry but she, her husband, Jonathan, and their three children had left the country, claiming diplomatic immunity. The U.S. Embassy in London said they did so on the advice of the U.S. State Department. *
The family is upset, but really there is nothing Sacoolas can do for them. The police wont charge her, so why shoudl she go back? So they can serve papers on her?
She may not have realized she would be instructed to return to the US.
And even if she lied, I don’t think there was anything criminal about it. Once the police realized she was covered by diplomatic immunity, they couldn’t have done anything to her even had she stayed. But surely it would be awkward to stay and have all the neighbors reminded every time they saw her that she was protected from justice.