3 ms·

I think that you don't fully understand the concept underlying diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity exists to ensure that countries cannot use the local leg

I think that you don't fully understand the concept underlying diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity exists to ensure that countries cannot use the local legal system when no crime is committed in order to put pressure on the diplomat or his family, not to go away when a real crime is committed. A lot of countries will wave diplomatic immunity when a real crime is committed or will prosecute the diplomat in their local legal system. The only countries refusing to do so are rogue or third world countries.

commoner 7y ago
> The only countries refusing to do so are rogue or third world countries. The U.S. has failed to waive diplomatic immunity in a number of reckless/drunk driving cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Vehicular_assault_and_drunk_driving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Vehicular_...
- magduf 7y ago
  Are you trying to counter the previous post, or support it?
  - commoner 7y ago
    Neither, since it's a matter of perspective.
FpUser 7y ago
"The only countries refusing to do so are rogue or third world countries." I wish people consult at least wikipedia when making claim. In this particular area "good" US looks worse than "bad" Russia which at least criminally charged the offender once he had been sent back to Russia. The US does stand up for its citizens which is a nice quality but on the other hand it goes overboard in many cases.
- greatpatton 7y ago
  yes that's exactly what I'm saying... (puzzled)