And rightly so.You can curse at Tom Brady all you want, as long as you're not in Massachusetts, but you can't curse at him IN Massachusetts.
See MGL ch. 272 § 36A
Not sure about that. Jurisdiction applies with a dictionary meaning to states and municipalities, but I think you will find that a lot of federal laws apply to US citizens regardless of location. The income tax is a prime example, but from a criminal perspective there are federal crimes that apply to US persons who go outside the country to perform certain acts, usually of a sexual nature. It is also a federal crime to bribe a foreign official. Neither act occurs within the "jurisdiction" of the US but the laws are enforced anyway.research; jurisdiction
that will give you all of your answers
I actually have a problem with the DOJ's view on this. Not the act itself in this specific instance, but the idea that the US can impose its laws on people wherever they are. If you aren't in the US, then whatever activity you engage in should either be criminalized in that location or the US should butt the heck out.The DoJ seems to think they can...
http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children
The penalty isn't severe enough. The offender should be forced to watch all Bills, Colts, and Ravens games.You can curse at Tom Brady all you want, as long as you're not in Massachusetts, but you can't curse at him IN Massachusetts.
See MGL ch. 272 § 36A
It doesn't matter where you are. You are a U.S. Citizen and subject to our laws.I actually have a problem with the DOJ's view on this. Not the act itself in this specific instance, but the idea that the US can impose its laws on people wherever they are. If you aren't in the US, then whatever activity you engage in should either be criminalized in that location or the US should butt the heck out.
Cruel and unusual punishment prohibition prevents that.The penalty isn't severe enough. The offender should be forced to watch all Bills, Colts, and Ravens games.
Not all crimes have extraterritorial reach and those that are prosecuted are artfully crafted to fall under the sorts of laws that affect the US directly, or at least claimed as such, so that the US can in fact prosecute those crimes. It is, to me, an overreaching of our government and turns our citizenship into a burden of servitude to the US government. In other words; it is wrong to prosecute an individual for actions in other countries that are not illegal in those other countries but are under the laws of the US. Consider the possibilities: many drugs are legal outside of the US that are illegal in the US. How can a person be prosecuted for partaking of a wholly legal activity in that country but be subject to prosecution once returning to the US? How does that even make sense? I can only imagine a person driving a vehicle on the autobahn at 150 mph and when returning to the US being charged with multiple crimes as that is above any federally set speed limit (although I do not believe speeding is one of the federal laws that enjoys extraterritorial jurisdiction but why couldn't it? It could be shuffled into a category just like many other crimes that were shifted to fit within a category of laws where the US can express extraterritorial jurisdiction).The DoJ seems to think they can...
http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children
And US law should end end at the border, citizen or not. We're pretty much the only country that doesn't operate that way.It doesn't matter where you are. You are a U.S. Citizen and subject to our laws.
TD
That's far from true. Many countries extend laws to citizens outside the borders. The UK is certainly one.And US law should end end at the border, citizen or not. We're pretty much the only country that doesn't operate that way.
It worked so well that they lost an empire that spanned the globe.That's far from true. Many countries extend laws to citizens outside the borders. The UK is certainly one.