Diplomatic immunity is very much okay but to some extent it needs to be limited to the diplomat her or himself so as to avoid diplomatic immunity abuse by the technical staff. Diplomats are very much concerned with upholding international law and they would not want to put their states in any kind of trouble in the international system and so they would do anything to uphold good relations with other states.
Diplomatic Immunity is an odd duck. You know? If I have it then I can do all sorts of heinous things in a culture and get away with it so as to not start an international incident. Silly. We need an updated version with a scale, like security clearances, with levels so diplomats don't all get treated with the same importance.
Diplomats being sent to this country, or from our country to another deserve to have their homeland's rules upheld. Ninety percent of the time, this is not an issue. There are few rule-breakers in the diplomat community, so what would be the reason to revoke the law? It allows diplomats to come here and feel safe, and for our diplomats to go elsewhere and know they are able to perform their jobs without unnecessary hassle.
I do not agree with the concept of diplomatic immunity. I think that it is a silly policy that allows way too much power to those in such roles. I also that think that a lot the diplomats today abuse their powers. A person should be held responsible for their actions regardless of their roles.
I'm not really in favor of diplomatic immunity as it stands. Obviously, I think we should extend some consideration to the diplomatic missions of foreign nations. That is a courtesy needed to ensure friendly relations. But when it comes to things like speeding, drunk driving, etc. I don't think they deserve to be shielded from prosecution.