BritsKate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 4,835
That's a tough case to cite for many reasons, just one of them being that those convicted (a US and a UK citizen, respectively) in Bangladesh were ordered to death after a trial in absentia. In almost all cases (terrorists and political cases aside) the country in which the crime was committed retains jurisdiction. I can't see how or why Indonesia would forfeit that right. It's actually standard protocol for the US State Department to advise it's citizens traveling and living abroad that they are subject to the laws and subsequent penalties of the area they travel/move to.Well, I am looking into this thing about the US taking the Terrible Two back to the US .. so far, I have found this:
Though it does not completely make sense to me, because US citizens have been tried in other countries before. I mean, how can this be enforced if the US is not 'in possession' of the accused?
I'm aware of some convicted criminals later returned to their home countries on humanitarian grounds - but all post trial, and usually only after completing a substantial portion of their sentence in the country in which they committed the offense. Extradition laws often allow for such an eventuality.
So, I guess I don't get it either why there's even a seeming possibility of them being tried stateside. It doesn't make sense. Without an actual quote from an Indonesian official citing the reasons for such, I'm thinking there's an error in understanding the legal process somewhere. Think of everything that goes into a prosecution - the officers, the forensics - imo, that would be next to impossible to replicate on American soil. Either that, or I'm grossly misinformed.
JMO and FWIW