Now, if we change the question to a state-to-state issue, how does that change the answer?
That is, if I do something that is legal in California and illegal in Texas, and I am a resident of Texas, can Texas do anything about it when I return to Texas?
The laws from state to state aren’t that different today on the “basic” issues like murder, pedophilia, rape, etc. But, let’s assume that in the future some states’ laws diverge quite a bit.
Can states keep their residents from “misbehaving” in other states?
Did you notice where I said “ordinary murder?” The OP wasn’t asking about going to the US Embassy in Thailand to commit sex crimes. If a US citizen murdered somone in Bangkok (sp?) it could only be prosecuted by the Thai government.
I think that’s a more interesting question because states (i.e., the 50 states) are sorta sovereign and sorta not. In general, Texas probably couldn’t do anything.
Assume Texas has the same ability to invoke extraterritorial jurisdiction (at least w/r/t to some of the principles I laid out above) as a nation does insofar as that exercise of jurisdiction doesn’t conflict with the limits placed on Texas by its status as one of many states in the Union. For one thing, the Full Faith & Credit Clause requires Texas to accept most official actions of the California government, so if you did something in California that restulted in some sort of state proclamation, Texas would probably be forced to accept it. (There’s an exception for issues that run contrary to Texas public policy, but let’s leave that off for now.)
Even w/o a state action that would invoke the FF&CC, the federal scheme anticipates – demands, even – that states should be allowed to set their own policies and that people can travel from state to state to decide which they like best. As such, states are going to be more limited in the exercise of their jurisdiction extraterritorially.
That said (and since we talked about sex tourism upthread), taking a (willing) 17-year-old from a consent-18 state to a consent-16 state to have sex with her is probably a violation of the Mann Act.
I agree with Padeye that in the case of an “ordinary” murder of a Thai by a U.S. national in Thailand is not a subject of federal jurisdiction. However, there are enough exceptions (MEJA, if the victim had nexus with the U.S.) that we must be careful about overgeneralizing. Plus, as this discussion has shown, the U.S. could take jurisdiction of these types of crimes (under nationality jurisdiction) by passing a law that allows for it (as it did with MEJA or, in the case of sex, the Protect Act). The U.S. is not powerless to give itself jurisdiction – it’s just that it has not chosen to do so yet.
But if you found yourself on vacation in a consent-16 state, and you met a 17-year old and had sex with her, your consent-18 state couldn’t do anything about that, correct?
What if someone organizes bus trips for men to go to a consent-16 state to have sex with 16-year olds (non-prostitutes). Is the consent-18 state going to tolerate that?
Also, if Roe-vs-Wade is overturned and abortion is legal in some states and illegal in others, could the no-abortion states do anything to stop people from organizing bus trips to pro-abortion states to get abortions?
Could they do anything to stop private individuals from going to another state to get an abortion? I’m not saying that they would want to, but from a legal standpoint, could they?
Haven’t some states had laws that forbid leaving the state to do something that’s illegal there? I think California has, or had, such a law, but I can’t find the section in FindLaw. It could be something I remember reading in a 1930 copy of the CA Penal Code. My guess is that the law was aimed at those who travel to Mexico for the purpose of underage drinking (or any drinking, during Prohibition). Of course, if on the return trip you show up at the border drunk, they’d have you for DUI anyway, but the law about leaving the state would give prosecutors another element in the charge, perhaps for bargaining purposes. Sixty or seventy years ago, Mexico also had legal casino gambling, and the law would have probably been applied in that context as well.
As for killing someone, it’s hard to imagine a place where killing anyone, apart from those condemned under what passes for due legal process in that country, is legal.
Don’t police in California routinely arrest and charge 18, 19 & 20-year-olds on their way back from Tijuana (where they presumably went to drink)?
Furthermore, didn’t police back in The Day arrest carloads of teenagers returning from drinking binges in neighboring states. For example, say the drinking age was 18 at one time in Illinois, while it was 21 in Wisconsin. So teenagers from WI would descend upon bars in northern Illinois, then get caught by the WI law when they went home.
So, this seems to imply that if Roe-vs-Wade is overturned and abortion is legal in some states and illegal in others, the no-abortion states could take action
against their residents who go to other states to have an abortion, correct?
“Commerce between the states” is a <i>federal</I> matter, which I think would make it very difficult for state governments to prohibit people crossing state lines in order to find a more conducive legal environment for any activity. I don’t know, but if police did target carload of youths returning from places where drinking was legal for them, any legal action taken would still have to be on the basis of something unlawful done in the state, such as a drink/driving offence.
There’s also the point that such laws would be largely unenforceable in practice when it came to something like abortion. What, pregnancy tests for all women at the state line? And again coming back in? “Please explaing how you were pregant when you left yesterday and you’re not today, Ma’am”?
There’s also the political will question; there might be vocal minorities calling for such laws (and ignoring the constitutiional and practical limitations). But my guess is that a much larger number of voters (including many broadly pro-life voters) would be revolted at the idea, and the legislators would know this.
Not necessarily. Now that I’ve had time to thinkg about it some more, I believe that CA cops arresting teenagers on their way back from Tijuana nab them on public intoxication charges (even if they’re passengers in a car with a sober driver).
I guess the thing to do is spend the night in Tijuana.
Although I’ve not studied the Mann Act, I believe this is correct.
Iiiinteresting. I don’t believe the home state could do anything. Of course, this is exactly the type of thing that would create a political shitstorm so 1) don’t count on the home state not to try and 2) expect the target state to ban such activity, perhaps by raising the AoC generally.
Same as above – I don’t believe that the non-abortion states could do anything. The federal government could, of course, ban such transport. (Indeed, Congress considered a bill to do something similar in the proposed Child Custody Protection Act, which, had it passed, would have prevented people from transporting a minor across state lines to get an abortion while avoiding her home state’s parental consent laws.)
But if a state were for some reason to lower their age of consent to say 12; the feds wouldn’t be able to prosectue you unless you crossed state lines but if you went to a foreign land they could?
I’ve never heard of any country where it’s okay to just kill someone. Reguardless, If you are of sound mind, killing someone will affect your conscience, it doesn’t matter what country you’re in or what “their” laws are. We have our own internal, civil, humane, law, which of course can sadly be corrupted.
But woe, what a question! Are you planning on taking someone to another country and taking them out!!!