• Diplomatic immunity laws should be revised.

    Diplomatic immunity laws should be revised. Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled. Many of these laws have not been changed.

  • Yes diplomatic immunity laws should be revised

    It's ridiculous that diplomats can come to our country, violate our laws and get off totally free. The laws should apply to everyone equally, diplomat or not. I think diplomatic immunity should be abolished completely. If you can't follow the laws of the country you're working in, go home, don't expect special treatment because you're a diplomat.

  • Something should be done

    Diplomatic immunity laws should be revised because some of the diplomats that come to this country take advantage of the la rules that we allow. They are allowed to commit unacceptable behavior and then there are no consequences because of the crazy immunity laws that we have in place. This needs to change.

  • Diplomatic immunity should not be a "get out of jail free" card.

    I believe in diplomatic immunity as long as it isn't being abused. Yes, it needs to be revised and limited in scope - it needs teeth in it. There should be clearly defined revisions that address criminal activities, burden of proof, and the right to detain or extradite an individual found guilty of committing an offense or crime.

  • Yes, revision is needed!

    Diplomatic immunity should only be upheld when minor charges are brought against an individual who can prove or convince a judge/jury that they honestly didn't know what they did was a crime. It should be a privilege granted after a fair hearing and not an automatic get out of jail free card. Some of these diplomats fully take advantage of this status and trample on the rights of the citizens in the country they are staying in--governments should have had a problem with this and a solution for this loooong ago!

  • No one is above the law that the way it shoud be

    Defend against all threat foreigh and domestic

    hmm i dont know where i read that
    i guest it not valid anymore

    i guest that why criminal are running the country
    an activist are in jail or murder by related suicide
    people are so angry that we are attacking the nation
    we need to make the world a safe place again
    this is the first step changing stupid laws
    put in place by stupid people

  • No one is above the law

    Diplomatic immunity is basically a get out of jail free card, this is not a game of monopoly, this is the real world. Diplomats are coming to this country and others committing heinous crimes and getting away with it because they are "respected members of the community" but no one should be above the law, the law is there for a a reason. Yes, i believe the people who created this laws had good intentions but its not 1961 anymore, times have changed and along with time society. Back then it wasn't common for people to rape or murder all the time like it is now. These laws were created to better the world and right now its doing the opposite.

  • It should be totally abolished

    It goes against the notion of equal justice for all and that no one is above the law. You should not be treated differently by the police or the courts because of your job. If they started letting doctors or police officers off blatant crimes just because they are "respected members of the community", there would be uproar. Yet this still happens to diplomats. It is an antiquated law that has is being abused and needs to end. No one should be above the law, full stop.

  • Yes it should be revised

    Diplomats free to murder and run up unpaid parking fines, because they are protected by a convention agreed in Vienna in 1961. It was drafted by government lawyers under orders to puff diplomats up with as much power as possible, so they bestowed upon them not just immunity but impunity, covering every crime and misdemeanour committed during foreign service, whether or not in the course of duty

  • Should be evaluated by a third party

    I think that in the case of a violent offense their immunity status should be decided by a third party, either a specific U.N. committee or the International Court.
    Also note that diplomats from civilized democratic countries involved in criminal offenses have always been punished one way or the other. Why should we allow 3rd world privileged scum to get a free out of jail card? Is it not enough to oppress their people, must they also make a mockery of our democracies?

  • No, diplomatic immunity laws protect our foreign diplomats.

    Diplomatic immunity is a fun concept for political intrigue movies, but it is not really that large of an issue in the real world. It protects diplomats from retribution in situations that are outside of their control. If we go to war with a foreign country, we may expel their diplomats, but we cannot arrest them and question them. The same is true for our diplomats in foreign countries, and that is an important safeguard for ensuring that we can attract capable diplomats to the field.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.