Of course I morally oppose child prostitution, however it’s dangerous territory when the US starts attempting to impose their laws when I am physically not in their jurisdiction. I think it’s a slippery slope because some laws involve a certain level of morality and while I agree with this one, it sets a precedent that makes me wary.
The concept is clearly an overreach, but it is warranted. There is a big dif between child prostitution oversees, getting high in Amsterdam, or going to the Bunny Ranch in NV if you are from CA. Getting high is something you do to yourself. Going to the Bunny Ranch, is a legal normal thing.
Raping kids overseas, is not only illegal here, it is also morally reprehensible (at least), and also goes against international human right laws (I would assume - no, I won’t provide a cite).
The reason the overreach is warranted is precisely due to the lack of law enforcement and abundance of corruption overseas, and the fragility of the victim in this case. I admit its a slippery slope, but I would rather something be done, than nothing at all.
I agree with you. The big difference of the acts you mention are all inherently tied with morality. Morality is a subjective thing. What alarms me is that it seems that we are willing to allow the government to overreach in the name of good. While in this case most would agree this is for the good, we are left to trust the government to restrain themselves in other areas.
This is already done for abortion, both domestically (US states barring, and theoretically punishing, interstate travel for the purpose) and internationally (see the ongoing debate in Ireland).
Prostitution is completely illegal in Thailand and most nearby countries (not sure about Singapore off the top of my head), but it is completely tolerated if not encouraged. There’s some murkiness as to the age of consent. It appears that it is somewhere below the age of 18 with the parents’ permission (like, say, you are dating her), but it’s not clear exactly what that age is, and anyway for anyone with even half a brain, you’d best stick to 18 on up. The funny thing is girls can work in bars at age 18 but cannot patronize bars unless they’re 21. There have been quite a few times when a guy wants to take an 18-20-year-old out of one bar and go have a drink in another, but she cannot go there, because of her age. And there have been instances of bars being shut down for 30 days because an 18-20-year-old bargirl from another bar did go in as a customer and an undercover cop spotted her.
Vox, I think perhaps your disagreement is in the extreme nature of the crime at issue? Like other dopers have mentioned, if a law was in place for a banned book, should I be prosecuted on my return from England or wherever in which I read the book? No exceptions exist for you at all?
The nature of laws and a country’s sovereignty is supposed to give them a free hand in their own jurisdiction. Unless they’ve agreed to some international treaties or something like the UN, one country’s citizens should not be punished if they left that country’s territory to do something that would be legal in their host country but not their home country
There’s no ongoing debate on this issue in Ireland. The right of women to travel out of Ireland for abortions was confirmed by referendum in 1992. There is no basis in law for an Irish person to be punished for having an abortion outside the country, and it has never happened.
If I’m not mistaken, the jurisdiction of the United States as regards criminal behavior is limited to its territory and that over which it has jurisdiction (the latter including military bases abroad leased from the host country, ships on the high seas and aircraft with U.S. registry, etc. But, of course, this also includes immigration and customs. So, for example, buying OTC a painkiller in Rotterdam or Toronto that is prescription only in the U.S. but sold without prescription there would not constitute the crime of illegally possessing a controlled substance without a prescription, as it would if one were in Tampa or Tucson.
What I’m driving at with reference to the current discussion is that what is criminalized is not the actual patronizing of an underage prostitute but the act of traveling, i.e., leaving the U.S., for the purpose of patronizing an underage prostitute. The first is a crime (if it is) under Thai or Romanian or Mexican law, over which the U.S. has no jurisdiction; but the latter is something done within the U.S. – i.e., at its borders or ports of entry – and therefore subject to its jurisdiction.
You’ll find that a lot of Federal statutes include this sort of carefully crafted language, to make what most people consider should be a crime fall within the legal bounds of what the U.S. may criminalize. A hypothetical example, since I don’t have any real ones to cite from memory, would be if U.S. law made it illegal to kill someone using a gun, knife, or other weapon manufactured in a different state – it’s not that Congress feels that killing someone with a locally manufactured weapon is any less heinous, but that the manufacture in a ‘foreign’ state to the one of the crime invokes the interstate commerce clause, giving the Feds. jurisdiction to regulate.
Perhaps Gfactor or another lawyer could validate or correct what I said above, and cite an actual example where a technicality is invoked to grant Federal jurisdiction, in place of my hypothetical one.
So could you argue that you didn’t intend to but as you were over there and the opportunity arose you thought “what the Hell” and went for it?
I do not believe this is the case at all. I believe the law criminalises the actual sexual act and not any travel. I would like to see the actual text of the law.
American legislators often want to extend their reach beyond America’s borders as is the case with the Helms-Burton act.
Not that there is not much stupidity regarding “intent”. A person entering the USA on a tourist visa with the intention of getting married is breaking the law but a person who enters the USA on a tourist visa and then decides to get married to an American citizen is fine. So, I know of a person who entered on a tourist visa and then got married and was carefully coached by the lawyer before the interview with Immigration. You should say you had never even thought about marriage until your spouse popped the question once you were in the USA. You did not enter the USA with any intention of getting married and you only considered the possibility when you received the proposal once you were inside the USA.
And it’s correct. The buyers are criminals, the sellers are not, which is in my opinion the one sensible way to do it if one is to have anti-prostitution laws.
Which, while we’re on the subject, is also the way it works in Sweden, minus the testing at the border. If I test positive in Sweden it doesn’t matter if I did the drugs in Amsterdam, in Stockholm or in Antarctica. I’m busted.
sailor, I have a coworker who made the stupid mistake of coming home to the USA with his fiancée in tow, and letting the border agent know that she was his fiancée! They immediately voided her tourist visa and sent her back home. I don’t know if things would have been any different if they were merely girlfriend/boyfriend rather than betrothed, but in any case they had no intention to marry while they were in the United States. I also have a very good friend that has a common law wife (I guess that’s what it is), and she only has a tourist visa. As far as I know, they’ve never, ever had difficulties in crossing the border.
I collected some previous threads on this here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9096700&postcount=7
I think you’re confusing my ideas about should-be-allowed-to versus would-be-a-good-idea-in-all-cases. And something would only be illegal for citizens overseas if it were specifically made illegal for citizens overseas; I’m not saying every law should be enforced like that; it would not be a good idea. That doesn’t mean I don’t think the government should be prohibited from doing it in all cases—I see no reason why they should be. Why shouldn’t citizens of one country be subject to its jurisdiction when they leave and commit a crime that has specifically been made illegal overseas? They only fall under the foreign country’s jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that it controls its own territory and can’t let foreigners come in and do whatever they want. The citizen owes no actual allegiance to the foreign country, but the citizen does still “belong” to his parent country, and it should be able to prosecute him for crimes he commits under its laws, if it chooses to enforce them like that, no matter where the citizen is actually located at the time of commission. You only become immune from this, in my opinion, when you stop being a citizen of the home country and take up foreign citizenship. Then, obviously, you are only subject to that new country’s laws.
And as for drugs, if I thought that drug laws really were a good idea and needed to be enforced, yes, I would support laws making it illegal overseas. (Although enforcement would be difficult without random, unconstitutional drug tests.) I don’t, though. As for something like murder, though, why not? Sure, the foreign country should get to try you because you killed one of their guys, but if you get off or something, your own country should be able to try you for, you know, being a murderer.
Are you saying that this is unconstitutional or something? If so, on what grounds? If not, I’m not sure I see your point.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
The summary looks like it pretty much is in sync with what I’m saying, although I’m sure the actual details of official U.S. policy are different.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Following links from there I found
So it seems (b) restricts the extraterritorial effects of the law to US citizens and residents “who travel in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person”. The travel does not have to be from the USA but what it punishes is the intention, not the act. I think a defense would be that the purpose of the travel was not to engage in sex but that the sex happened unexpectedly during travel intended for other purposes.
Non-resident foreign nationals are exempt from this part.
That does not appear to be legal, and hence is not relevant for this thread.
Did anyone else see the “new post” email and think Why the FUCK did I subscribe to a thread with THAT title? I knew right away it must be a zombie from before NSA domestic surveillance was in the news.