Just wondering what the deal is. From what I gather from TV dramas (not the most reliable source, I realize), those protected by diplomatic immunity basically have free reign to commit any heinous crime they desire with impunity. Surely there have got to be some restrictions, loopholes, etc. They can’t really rape, pillage and murder without ANY consequences, can they? Anybody know how this works?
Well… bascially, diplomatic immunity in the US is just that. Diplomats routinely do not pay parking tickets, for example. Their families are also immune. As I understand it, this is a blanket policy.
There have been several cases where a diplomat has killed someone while driving drunk. Generally, when a serious crime is committed, the diplomat is extradited to his/her home country to face their own judicial system.
There have often been attempts to reform diplomatic immunity, which have largely been unsuccessful.
This is all going back a few years in memory- teeming millions, feel free to correct anything I may have wrong.
Yes, friends you can find pretty much anything you want to online. According to the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.; commonly referred to as the `Foreign Missions Act’), as amended 1998, diplomatic immunity is ‘full immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of [the United States / some other state] under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities.’
Nothing too ambiguous about that. Diplomatic immunity is pretty much blanket…and yes, it does go all the way up.
On January 4, 1997, a 16-year-old Maryland girl (Joviana Waltrick) was killed in D.C. by Georgian Deputy Chef de Mission Gueorgui Makharadze, who was driving drunk at about 85 mi/h. In this particular case, diplomatic immunity was lifted, and Mr Makharadze is now doing 7 to 21 after pleading guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter and four counts of aggravated assault. But it is important to note that the trial only took place after Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze personally removed Mr Makharadze’s diplomatic immunity; it would have been fully within Georgia’s rights to have not done so.
But as far as murder without any consequences, that has (nearly) happened too, although we have to look abroad for that. On November 23, 1996, the Zairian ambassador to France, Raymond Ramazani Baya, killed two young boys in a car accident on the Riviera, doing an estimated 78 mi/h in a 20 zone. He was recalled to Zaire, but after two months of fierce protests, his diplomatic immunity was lifted and he returned to France to stand trial. He received a two-year suspended sentence and a $4,400 fine, and three years’ prohibition to drive in France. Oh, and he resigned his post.
Also, diplomatic immunity is granted on the assumption that, once home, the offender will be dealt with by the local judicial system, so he wouldn’t be getting away scott-free in any eventuality.
Diplomatic Immunity also extends to our diplomats in other countries. I remind folks of this, since IIRC, one of the reasons for wishing to have such a system is to protect our diplomats in other countries - to protect them should an “enemy” of our country decide to press false charges against our diplomatic staff. Don’t know that it ever was an issue, but for example, during the Cold War, it would have been handy to have.
The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from being harassed by the authorities in the host nation. In cases where the diplomat’s behaviour is simply criminal, like those cited by MrDeath, the home nation will usually either lift the immunity or recall the diplomat and try him under their own laws.
Notwithstanding diplomatic immunity, it is always open to the host nation to expel an individual diplomat, and this is the usual sanction in the case of less serious offences.
The concept of diplomatic immunity developed over many centuries and was intended to prevent a country from harassing diplomats stationed there. A diplomat could indeed commit murder – assassinate the opposing head of state, for instance – and would not be tried. If the crime is great enough, either the ambassador would be shipped home for trial, or the diplomatic immunity would be lifted by his home government. Under no circumstances would any government allow another government to arrest one of its diplomats without their consent.
During the cold war, countries used people with diplomatic immunity as spies. Every time the USA discovered a few Soviet spies and expelled them , the Soviets would immediately retaliate by accusing an equal number of american diplomats (without cause, needless to say) of spying and expelling them. Were it not for immunity diplomats would be subject to prosecution for political ends.
I dated a woman here in DC who worked at an embassy and it was wonderful when she would just pull out a card from the State Department and say “no sales tax, please”.
Sorry I can’t give you details but I don’t have them. I once read a story about a man who was a relative of an ambassador from some third world country. He was on the embassy staff and had full diplomatic immunity. A police investigation identified him as the perpetrator of several forcible rapes but the only action that could be taken against him was to order him to leave the United States.