3 ms·
I don't why. The alleged crime occurred in a foreign country, and the evidence presented to the host country was deemed sufficient for an arrest for an equivale
by jonathankoren 10y ago
I don't why. The alleged crime occurred in a foreign country, and the evidence presented to the host country was deemed sufficient for an arrest for an equivalent crime in the host nation. This is just the flip side of the old adage that the Internet erases International borders.
Would it really be better if the host county put the alleged criminal on trial for crime that wasn't committed in the host country at all? Some countries do that (specifically I'm thinking about Israel) I wonder what he ge practical difference is.
- tovmeod 10y agohow Israel does that? are you refering to the nazi hunting?
- jonathankoren 10y agoNo. Israel kidnaps Nazis from foreign countries to put them on trial in Israel. See Adolf Eichmann. I was specifically thinking about Samuel Sheinbein who killed a classmate in Maryland then fled to Israel, claimed Israeli citizenship, and because he was now Israeli would not be extradited. Instead he was put on trial in Israel for murdering his classmate in the United States.[0] What I did not know until now, is that because of the legal crisis this case caused, Israel changed their extradition law regarding people who were not residents of Israel at the time the crime was committed in an effort to avoid being seen as a safe haven for Jewish criminals. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sheinbein https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sheinbein