New answers tagged

2

YES you can be prosecuted. BUT you are largely safe if you limit yourself to go to places that have no extradition arrangements with China or Hong Kong, or those places that will likely reject a extradition request. Countries are perfectly allowed to prosecute slander, seditious speech, or lese-majeste, wherever they’re committed. A good example is Saudi ...


0

Addition to the answer by @user9389: Most of the European countries established their legislation when terrorism was high on the public agenda as a part of law and order policies. Law and order policies do not neccessarily have to be effective, many of them are rather symbolic or bet on deterrence. Sources: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000063296712/...


25

This reflects similar situations applicable wrt other nations. A person wanted by the US authorities flew on a Canada-Mexico flight across the US. The aircraft was instructed to land en-route in the US and the passenger was removed. Israeli nationals who have any concern that they may be legally detained by countries who have extradition treaties with their &...


17

Countries do this all the time. Sometimes, they will claim universal jurisdiction for crimes they consider particularly heinous or crucial to their national security (think Julian Assange). Many jurisdiction will prosecute crimes like defamation based on the victim's location (the perpetrator's might not even be known initially). Some countries get some ...


39

It is quite common for countries to prosecute both actions by and against their nationals as soon as the perpetrator enters their jurisdiction. Some will also prosecute certain crimes by anyone who is presently in their jurisdiction, no matter where they happened. Some key points to take away: For some crimes (a citizen of country A murders a citizen of ...


66

How far applicable the law of a country is is decided by the law of that country. If other countries disagree, they can obviously decline to assist in the enforcement of those laws, and disallow the agents of the first country to act on their territory. There even is precedent that a country outlaws behaviour not related to it at all. For example, German law ...


11

Why $600 a week? When you add $600 to the national average unemployment payment — $371.88 a week at the end of 2019 — the replacement rate goes from 38 percent to almost exactly 100 percent. In other words, that amount is what it would take for Congress to replace what the average American worker receiving unemployment would have earned. This seems to be ...


-3

The quesion is based on a misconception: that police generally ARE racist. But a little research shows that black cops are perfectly willing to mistreat or even kill other black people, and that cops of any color are likewise willing to mistreat/kill poor white people. That suggests that the problem is in fact the general attitude of cops towards the ...


5

As you point out, there's no way to "test" for racism, and even if there were, firing people based solely on that would be uncomfortably close to punishing someone for "thought crimes". That's why people who try to tackle this problem don't try to eliminate prejudice, but to restructure and reform the system of policing so that the ...


6

People bringing up a "100 mile zone" are applying an unrelated concept. CBP officers are customs officers. As customs officers, 19 U.S. Code § 1589a gives them the power to: carry a firearm; execute and serve any order, warrant, subpena, summons, or other process issued under the authority of the United States; make an arrest without a warrant for ...


7

Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution governs the relationship of the several states and the federal government. Most applicable to the situation in Portland is the Property Clause, which grants Congress the constitutional authority for the management and control of all territories or other property owned by the United States. Congress in turn has passed ...


2

CBP are law enforcement officers with their power given to them by the Department of Homeland Security. They are legally allowed to do normal business to defend America's borders by policing territory within one hundred miles of America's border. "A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer's border search authority is derived from federal ...


2

Most answers here provide legitimate arguments, but surely ulterior motives exist. Consider that dreadful subset of sadistic, racist, corrupt, criminal, and all around "bad apple" police officers, Qualified Immunity helps to let them consciously do wrong as they like. QI also helps enable delusional officers who behave exactly as the "bad ...


3

Sometime in the 80's, Mike Royko (editorialist for the Chicago Tribune) wrote a piece covering an accident case. (I'm going from memory here.) A car had hit a motorcycle and the fault was clearly the car's. The motorcycle rider suffered pretty bad head injuries and so the car's insurance company was on the hook for substantial damages. The case went to ...


7

Law can restrict freedom Your definition of freedom "I should be able to do anything and everything, if it DOES NOT AT ALL hurt anything or anyone, be it financially, physically, mentally etc." is relevant to the default situation where no relevant regulations exist. However, you live in a society where that freedom is restricted, and you can do ...


3

Other answers being good, a lot of pressure to mandate the safety tools and features comes from the insurance business. When you insure something (be it property or other lawful asset, such as life and health) you are expected to protect the insured asset by all practical means. A certain amount of neglect can be considered an insurance fraud. A seatbelt in ...


5

Unfortunately, most other answers here don't have any sources. I'll answer this from the perspective of German lawmakers and translate the appropriate sources, since that's what I am most familiar with. Germany made it mandatory for cars to have seats belts on the front seats on 1974-01-01, for rear seats on 1979-05-01. Since 1988-01-01 the outer rear seats ...


11

What you understand by 'freedom' is not a universally accepted guiding principle. For example, some lawmakers might be operating on the idea that we should attempt to maximise the health and happiness of society. If you break your spine because you didn't wear a seat-belt, then your health and happiness (and freedom to walk around) is reduced. They then ...


16

It's a tradeoff between two things: the harm prevented by the law, and the freedom exercised (or harm tolerated) without the law. While I won't echo the existing answers, I will say that the harm prevented is fairly substantial and potentially lethal to more than just the victim. In contrast, the freedom infringed upon is tiny: Unless your helmet is damaged ...


3

TL; DNR: It’s all about costs and benefits. The arguments on both sides of the QI debate are largely practical. Both sides agree that using QI lowers the cost of police protection by insulating the police from groundless or harassing law suits. Both sides agree that using QI raises the cost of police protection by protecting the police from well-founded law ...


2

A brief statement by The International Association of Chiefs of Police posted under this link https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/IACP%20Statement%20on%20Qualified%20Immunity.pdf makes these arguments in favor of qualified immunity Qualified immunity provides police officers with protection from civil lawsuits so long as their conduct does not ...


21

There are laws that are meant to prevent people from hurting themselves. Examples: Prohibition of advertising for cigarettes (or forcing cigarette packs to contain images of lung cancer sufferers, etc) Minimum age for driving, drinking, etc Minimum age of consent Financial literacy tests before people are allowed to buy options in the stock market ...


2

Many countries which grant freedom of movement and related rights to their citizens have laws which allow these rights to be suspended during extenuating circumstances such as a pandemic, war, or other disaster. Some governments, such as Romania's, have fallen foul of the courts by failing to implement such exceptions - in this case, a law is currently being ...


3

This was the case in Germany until Juni 28th, 1968. Since then, the Notstandsgesetze (link in German) exist, which enable the government to cut several constitutional rights, one of them the freedom of movement. But for this they have to enact an emergency. An epidemic would be a sufficient reason if the threat is big enough. Right now, that's not yet the ...


10

SCOTUS established "qualified immunity" in Pierson v Ray. a policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does The nature of police is to protect people, property, and law in extremely compressed timeframes. ...


1

I think you answered your own question in one of your comments. The most likely reason indeed seems to me that Singapore wanted to keep good relations with Malaysia. Malaysia probably could live with the fact of women in a neighbouring country getting abortions but not with "their own women" getting abortions there.


Top 50 recent answers are included