To start of this debate I would like to state clearly the motion, This House Believes that criminals of a foreign ethnicity should be tried in the origin country. Before you contradict my argument I will state that not all criminals will be affected by this prospect. An Indian man who robs a can of beer from a store won't be sent to India from London just to get a very short prison sentence. However the (please do not take this argue end as any form of racism) Indian who kills someone will be affected. In this first round I won't make any main points to support my motion, but I will say that if someone comes to a country and commits and seriously punishable crime then they deserve to be shamed in their own country, hopefully not only shaming the criminal, but the country he originates from. This should cause both less immigrants to commit crimes lest they lose their chance at a new life, but their original country will imply stricter regulations in the fear of ruining their reputations.
I oppose Ghostless's viewpoint that criminal offenders should be tried in their country of origin. This is due to the fact that this would be nothing more than an inconvenience, both to the countries and the offender. Suppose we continue with my opponents example and say that an Indian man is accused of homicide. To transport that man back to India would cause a great nuisance to the government of the country that the crime was committed in, and to the country that is receiving he supposed offender, as both would have to fund the transport of the criminal. Adding to the fact is the possibility that the offender is found not to be guilty. The offender than would have to be sent back to the country he/she came from or they must stay in their original country, adding to the annoyance. There is also a physiological dilemma to this proposal, as the family of the victim may want to witness the trial as well.