OpinionDiplomatic immunity is too much of a privilege. It should be replaced with a lesser one, like trials with a guarantee of no imprisonment during the public service where the crime allegedly took place.
      – BorgClown, 2009-10-12 at 02:27:39   (4 comments)

On 2009-10-12 at 02:28:08, BorgClown wrote...
I've seen it abused too many times to justify the privilege.
On 2009-10-12 at 11:41:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I'm not entirely certain what the situation is in every country, but it does seem that immunity applies to too many people. You'd expect if the president or prime minister of another country were visiting, they'd have immunity. Ambassadors and other diplomats are theoretically replaceable, expect perhaps full generals. But no matter what your status, why would you be allowed to get away with a serious crime? I can accept immunity for petty crimes, where no real harm is done, but violent crimes deserve justice no matter who the perpetrator is?
On 2009-10-13 at 02:17:17, BorgClown wrote...
Immunity it's meant to avoid political manipulation of the law, like incriminating or falsely accusing an uncomfortable governor and have him legally nullified or even incarcerated. It makes me mad when a congressman can be drunk and pee in public without legal consequences, that's ridiculous.
On 2009-10-13 at 02:19:07, BorgClown wrote...
I like it when Victor Von Doom is not incarcerated because he has diplomatic immunity for being the ruler of Latveria. He's protected criminals by having them as guests in Latveria's US embassy.