Question about sexual tourism

[Luna Tick]

I think before much of a discussion can take place, we really have to know if what you "hear" is true...that an American citizen travelling out of the United States who has sex with a minor in another country where it's legal can actually be prosecuted here in the U.S. I think your entire premise is incorrect.

The laws do exist. I quote:

The United States has risen to take legislative action against the growing evils of child sex tourism. In 1994, Congress established 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), which is aimed towards prosecution of child sex tourists. Section 2423(b) criminalizes traveling abroad for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity with a minor. Currently, successful prosecution under § 2423(b) requires the government to prove that an alleged child sex tourist from the United States formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a child prior to meeting the child and initiating sexual contact. In other words, a defendant is only punishable under § 2423(b) if he has the intent, while traveling, to engage in sexual activity with minors. The federal government has successfully utilized § 2423(b) to target several child sex tourists. Current proposals to eliminate the intent requirement may broaden the government's prosecutorial power by allowing the government to prosecute United States citizens who engage in sexual acts with children while abroad, regardless of when they formed the intent to do so.

That's from this web page:
Sex Tourism

 

[Gargantuan]

The laws do exist. I quote:


That's from this web page:
Sex Tourism

I don't like the idea of someone being prosecuted for just ending up having sex with a minor overseas. If I were 19 and go overseas and end up having sex with a 16 year old in a country where it is legal, hauling me to jail in the US would be absolutely despicable.

 

[Ikari]

Everyone's subject to our laws within our borders. Our citizens are subject to our laws anywhere in the universe.

The United States only has proper jurisdiction in the US. All other countries are sovereign and thus our laws can't overrule theirs.

 

[Ikari]

Because you carry your citizenship with you. You do not stop being an American at the American border.

But American sovereignty does end at the American border.

 

[Luna Tick]

I don't like the idea of someone being prosecuted for just ending up having sex with a minor overseas. If I were 19 and go overseas and end up having sex with a 16 year old in a country where it is legal, hauling me to jail in the US would be absolutely despicable.

I have to agree. I also think some of our age of consent laws are unreasonable. Depending on the state, it's 16, 17, or 18. I think 17 (what it is here) and 18 are unreasonable. The rationale behind these laws is a person is too young to consent. I had sex when I was 16 with a 22 year-old. I was fully aware and knew what I was consenting to. It happened in Iowa where the law is 16, so nothing bad's gonna happen. If it had happened in a 17 or 18-age state, my boyfriend could have gone to jail. Ridiculous.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

But American sovereignty does end at the American border.

Which is why sex tourists cannot be prosecuted until they return to our territory.

 

[Ikari]

Which is why sex tourists cannot be prosecuted until they return to our territory.

Yeah. But by that I meant I don't think there is legitimate power for US law to pertain to those outside the US. In that, our sovereignty ends at our boarders so that any act committed outside the US boarders which is not illegal in the country you are in should not be able to be prosecuted by the US upon return since US law cannot justly and legitimately hold outside of US boarders.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

See, I think American law pertains to Americans regardless of where they might be found. It's only a matter of whether or not we can prosecute, and whether or not it's worth our time.

People who go overseas to exploit children are always worth out time.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

See, I think American law pertains to Americans regardless of where they might be found. It's only a matter of whether or not we can prosecute, and whether or not it's worth our time.

People who go overseas to exploit children are always worth out time.

But as someone else said, what do you consider a child?

Some states consider a 17-year-old a unable to consent to sexual contact. They are one year away from the age of majority. Do you really believe the ability to give informed consent magically appears sometime between 17 or 18? Is a 17-year-old truly unable to consent? Or even a 15-year-old (on the low end of US consent laws)? How do you weigh this?

In some states, me having a 17-year-old boyfriend when I was 15 would have been illegal and he could have gone to jail. Why? Is there really such a huge difference between 15 and 17, especially since boys mature a little slower than girls? So much so that he could logically be charged with rape?

The point is that our consent laws are pretty illogical as-is. If you live in this country, you are automatically tipping your hat to those laws, no matter how illogical. But what possible argument can you make for prosecuting an American for violating them in a country where they don't even apply? Especially since they're stupid laws to begin with?

Even all that aside, there is still no legal or logical basis for applying the laws of ones citizenship to a foreign country. That is impossible, absurd, and irrational.

 

[Ikari]

See, I think American law pertains to Americans regardless of where they might be found. It's only a matter of whether or not we can prosecute, and whether or not it's worth our time.

People who go overseas to exploit children are always worth out time.

It's not that I don't think the crime can be punished. It's that I don't think that American law can have any authority outside our boarders. Thus any action committed by an individual in another country which is legal in that country, but illegal in America, cannot be prosecuted in America as it was not actually illegal to be done where said person performed the action. I don't think any one country can hold another to their laws when their actions are carried out outside the boarder.

 

[jamesrage]

exactly........citizens traveling abroad are still american citizens, and are beholden to our laws.

Does this apply to all laws and what if the penalties in other countries were just a slap on the wrist? For example if an American goes to a country where Marijuana is legal and buys,smokes and or sells Marijuana while in that country should he be prosecuted when he comes back to the US? What if instead of it marijuana being legal the penalty for possession,sale and usage was just a small fine or a sworn statement saying they are sorry, should that individual be punished to the fullest extent of the law over here in the US?

I know I would not want tourists to be punished in their home country for something they did over here that is not a crime and I would not want Americans punished in other countries for something they did over here in the US that is not a crime while it is a crime in what ever country they are visiting.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

But as someone else said, what do you consider a child?

Any human before sexual maturity. I think the age of consent should be higher than that, but to my mind that's an issue of protecting our citizens. We might say that we don't want adult men having sex with 13 year olds in this country, but I wouldn't say that such a man is disgusting in the same sense as a man who has sex with 8 year olds. We recognize differences in the age of consent across state borders, so there's no reason not to recognize international differences. I am just saying that we, as a people, can and should reserve the right to declare that people who engage in certain activities are unwelcome here regardless of where they engage in them.

Even all that aside, there is still no legal or logical basis for applying the laws of ones citizenship to a foreign country. That is impossible, absurd, and irrational.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think any one country can hold another to their laws when their actions are carried out outside the boarder.

I'm not talking about America holding other countries to its laws. I'm talking about America holding its own citizens to its laws, regardless of where they stand on the globe.

 

[jamesrage]

I'm not talking about America holding other countries to its laws. I'm talking about America holding its own citizens to its laws, regardless of where they stand on the globe.

Does this apply to all American laws?

And what if certian offenses were only slaps on the wrist in other countries while those same offenses have more serious and harsher punishments here in the US?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Does this apply to all American laws?

It could, in theory. In practice, it should only apply to those laws that we decide it should apply to.

And what if certian offenses were only slaps on the wrist in other countries while those same offenses have more serious and harsher punishments here in the US?

Let the other country apply its penalties, and then we can apply ours if we like. Dual sovereignty doesn't have to be limited to State/Federal issues.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Then it would be practically impossible to follow all the laws of the country you're actually in. I think the carry-over should be limited to breaking American laws that directly harm America regardless of the location of the person breaking it (such as treason).

Applying anything else is silly. And it would destroy pretty much all of our diplomatic relationships.

 

[Luna Tick]

It's not that I don't think the crime can be punished. It's that I don't think that American law can have any authority outside our boarders. Thus any action committed by an individual in another country which is legal in that country, but illegal in America, cannot be prosecuted in America as it was not actually illegal to be done where said person performed the action. I don't think any one country can hold another to their laws when their actions are carried out outside the boarder.

I would have to agree. For example if an American travels to a country where the age of consent is 15 and has sex with a 15 year-old (which is illegal in all 50 states), it should not be possible to prosecute him. However, if he goes there and has sex with a 14 year-old in that country, it should be possible to prosecute him, but not on American soil. He would have to be extradited back to the other country to face charges there.

Does this apply to all laws and what if the penalties in other countries were just a slap on the wrist? For example if an American goes to a country where Marijuana is legal and buys,smokes and or sells Marijuana while in that country should he be prosecuted when he comes back to the US? What if instead of it marijuana being legal the penalty for possession,sale and usage was just a small fine or a sworn statement saying they are sorry, should that individual be punished to the fullest extent of the law over here in the US?

I would have to agree. If someone goes to Amsterdam and smokes pot, where it's legal to do so, I wouldn't want to waste any of our police and legal resources prosecuting him when he returns home. He obeyed the laws of that country -- end of story. It's illegal to have sex with prostitutes of any age in most of the United States. If someone did that in another country, I don't think we have the right to prosecute him when he returns. For that matter, if he sleeps with a prostitute within the US where it's legal (Nevada), I don't think he should be prosecuted when he gets back to his home state.

I know I would not want tourists to be punished in their home country for something they did over here that is not a crime and I would not want Americans punished in other countries for something they did over here in the US that is not a crime while it is a crime in what ever country they are visiting.

I agree. In the US we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. However, in some countries it's illegal to say negative things about Islam. If someone came to the US and said critical things about Islam on TV, I don't believe it would be right of that person's country to prosecute him via anti-blasphemy laws when he gets home.

 

[DemonMyst]

Does this apply to all American laws?

And what if certian offenses were only slaps on the wrist in other countries while those same offenses have more serious and harsher punishments here in the US?

While I can't answer your question definitively.. The only laws our nation is really looking to prosecute for are child sex and say acts of terrorism againt our nation..

Amanda Knox was prosecuted for murder in Italy I believe.. Amanda Knox is an american citizen..

Watched an episode of locked up abroad.. A couple was imprisoned for adultry.. I think he was the american..

Also it depends on severity.. No.. smoking weed in another nation isn't going net you any trouble.. You obviously don't live near Canada do you??

 

[Ikari]

I'm not talking about America holding other countries to its laws. I'm talking about America holding its own citizens to its laws, regardless of where they stand on the globe.

But you are talking about American laws being valid in other countries. That is to say, the proper methods by which they can hold the laws and legitimately prosecute our citizens extends beyond the boarders. But the base philosophy of sovereignty is that no one can make laws above yours. So if an American is in some foreign country where the age of consent may be lower; how can America legitimately say that it doesn't matter what the laws of the land are, our laws trump it? Theoretically, that's not a rightful and just power.

 

[Aderleth]

Sounds like a thought crime then. I wouldn't be surprised if these laws are successfully challenged. Imagine if someone is intending to go to Tailand or some other country to have sex with minors and prints up information about it. When he goes there, he changes his mind and doesn't have sex with anyone, instead doing normal tourist things. When he gets home, someone from law enforcement finds his printed information (which includes only words, no photos) and figures out why he had been planning the trip. He ends up being prosecuted for thinking about having sex with minors. It seems to me they've created a thought crime for the purpose of getting around the fact that they can't prosecute someone for sex with a minor out of jurisdiction. I suspect a skilled attorney could rip these laws to shreds.

It's not thought crime. To be clear, I'm an attorney and I work primarily in criminal defense. I'm telling you this just so you know I'm not making this **** up...

Almost all criminal acts require proof of both a mental state and a physical act. For example, say I point a gun, fire the gun, the bullet hits a person in front of me, and that person dies instantly. This may or may not be murder, it depends on what my mental state was at the time I fired the gun. Here're the options:

1) I deliberately fired the gun with the intention of hitting and killing the person who was hit.
This is murder. It's murder because I performed an act leading to the death of a person, and I deliberately performed that act for the purpose of causing the harm that ensued.

2) I deliberately fired the gun, but for the purpose of hitting a target. I didn't realize until it was too late that there was a person standing right behind the target.
This is probably manslaughter, depending on whether or not a jury would conclude that I was criminally reckless in firing the gun without first establishing whether or not doing so might endanger someone's life. Otherwise it's not even a crime, and it'd never be considered murder. You can see that this scenario is different from the one above solely due to what I, the alleged criminal, was thinking at the time I fired the gun.

Similarly, the sexual tourism crime marries an act (leaving the country to go to a place where it's possible to have sex with minors) with a mental state (leaving the country for the purpose of having sex with minors). I agree that this is a douchy crime to create, and it does establish a dangerous precedent. For example, what's to stop the feds from making it a crime to leave the country for the purpose of getting stoned in a foreign country where that's legal? Or going to Mexico to take advantage of lower drinking ages? The answer is, nothing at all. This sucks a little.

You're right, by the way, that a person could conceivably be prosecuted and convicted of this crime even if he gets to (say) Thailand and changes his mind about banging kids when he gets there. That also sucks, but it's also pretty similar to the way our criminal justice works already. For example, there was a case we read in my Criminal Law class in law school in which a guy rented out office space above a bank, bought himself a drill and started drilling into the floor in order to break into the bank vault. Before he even got through to the ceiling below he thought better of his plan and stopped. He was successfully convicted of attempted bank robbery. Why? Because he performed an act (drilling into a bank vault) while being possessed of a specific mental state (the intent to rob the bank). Welcome to the wonderful world of criminal justice.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So if an American is in some foreign country where the age of consent may be lower; how can America legitimately say that it doesn't matter what the laws of the land are, our laws trump it?

He's an American citizen. We are not demanding that the foreign power change its laws in any fashion, or carrying out any action in any territory under their authority. The foreign country still has full sovereignty over its own citizens, and what activities they are willing to tolerate within their borders. All we're saying is that if we have determined something to be illegal for Americans, Americans cannot get away with it merely by doing it somewhere else.

 

[Ikari]

He's an American citizen. We are not demanding that the foreign power change its laws in any fashion, or carrying out any action in any territory under their authority. The foreign country still has full sovereignty over its own citizens, and what activities they are willing to tolerate within their borders. All we're saying is that if we have determined something to be illegal for Americans, Americans cannot get away with it merely by doing it somewhere else.

It's not that I don't get that. It's just that outside of US boarders, US law does not hold. So even if I'm an American citizen, if I'm not in America I shouldn't be held to American law as there is no legitimate way for them to claim their sovereignty extends beyond the US boarders.

 

[liblady]

Does this apply to all laws and what if the penalties in other countries were just a slap on the wrist? For example if an American goes to a country where Marijuana is legal and buys,smokes and or sells Marijuana while in that country should he be prosecuted when he comes back to the US? What if instead of it marijuana being legal the penalty for possession,sale and usage was just a small fine or a sworn statement saying they are sorry, should that individual be punished to the fullest extent of the law over here in the US?

I know I would not want tourists to be punished in their home country for something they did over here that is not a crime and I would not want Americans punished in other countries for something they did over here in the US that is not a crime while it is a crime in what ever country they are visiting.

well, that would be up to the home country, wouldn't it? additionally, i don't necessarily believe a pot crime should be treated the same as sexual exploitation of child, or rape. americans should be expected to abide by the laws of other countries, as well, in addition to abiding by ur laws. for me this is an entirely different issue.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So even if I'm an American citizen, if I'm not in America I shouldn't be held to American law as there is no legitimate way for them to claim their sovereignty extends beyond the US boarders.

It is perfectly legitimate to claim that American sovereignty applies to American citizens anywhere on Earth.

 

[BamaBrat]

This is a very interesting topic.
It would kind of be like if i wanted to go to Amsterdam to smoke pot legally. Its very much illegal here and I could be punished for it. But if I am in another country and it is legal, then why should I be punished? But thats very different than committing a crime here in the states and then fleeing to another country where it is legal for safety from prosecution.

(sorry just realized im repeating what someone just said, thats what I get for posting before I finish reading.)

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It would kind of be like if i wanted to go to Amsterdam to smoke pot legally. Its very much illegal here and I could be punished for it. But if I am in another country and it is legal, then why should I be punished?

If you have to ask that question, then you should ask why it is illegal here in the first place.