Do you think Diplomats should be granted Diplomatic Immunity? Why is it essential?

Question

They can commit crimes and escape. They cannot be arrested or even given a ticket.. Why must they have Diplomatic Immunity? I think it is impunity.

Answer 1

Politics require one to turn their head while a wrong is being done. In return, we usually rape them of thier natural resources.

Answer 2

yes, but only cam'ron and jim jones.  not juelz santana

Answer 3

NO! This is an antiquated system from a time that left our Ambassador's and other Officials in Foreign Lands with little access to escape should they be falsely charged with a crime.

Whereas today these Officials have access to quick getaway, transportation and a legal system that is more fair than that of those years past.

Answer 4

diplomatic immunity should not include immunity from justice  if they break a countries laws then the police of that  country should have to power to bring charges,the courts should ensure the charges if proven the sentence should fit the crime.

Answer 5

It is to keep harrassment from happening. If not then diplomats would be picked up for various reasons unrelated and subjected to many problems. When one really gets out of line they are expelled from the country. It is a quid pro quo. If we arrest one of theirs, they arrest one of ours, and so on. It keeps problems down. None of them do anything like you see on CSI. I believe it is need to maintain diplomatic relations.

Answer 6

It started out for the right reasons, it was to protect the diplomat from the country he was serving in.  They could easily put forth false charges, put them in prison, or even sentence them to death.  I agree that it has now become something much more, however realize that they didn't initially believe that the people who were selected to be diplomats would be the criminal type, and frankly most are not.

Answer 7

As with anything -- it's a balance. The origin of the concept is that diplomats were often harassed and threated by local law enforcement (or even people who claimed some local authority, back in medieval times) -- and the only way to ensure that the diplomats could function was to make them immune to any lesser authorities.

Over time, that became tradition -- and like any other tradition -- has it's advantages and disadvantages. Yes, some do commit crimes and escape. But most do not.

The alternative -- if ambassadors could be arrested and charged with petty crimes -- is that many countries would simply refuse to send them -- which would cause a breakdown in diplomatic relations.

It is perhaps less necessary now -- in an age of modern electronic communications and video conferencing -- to have face-to-face negotiations. But that would be the only type of negotiations that would exist at all with many countries if the concept of diplomatic immunity were tossed away.

Answer 8

Well, what you're stating is not really true.

First of all they need immunity simply because wherever they are is considered their home country, so no other government has jurisdiction over them.

Now if a diplomat should commit a crime he would be thrown out of the country and he/she would have to face a trial in his/her own country.

I hope it's useful for you.

Answer 9

There was a time when the diplomats of a foreign country were held hostage to pressure their country to act a certain way.  In too many countries, the law is what any policeman says it is, and most are looking for bribes.  If we want other nations' diplomats to be subject to our laws, we have to be prepared for the same treatment.  Do you want our ambassadors and their families rotting in jails in Turkmenistan or Uruguay?

Answer 10

Even though that happens sometimes it is important for those on the diplomatic corps be immune to arrest and prosecution.

It seems there should be some laws that protect the people from the diplomats though.

Answer 11

No, Commit a crime and they are no different than anyone else on a general daily basis.