Why are diplomats free from being charged with criminal acts even if they do so?

Question

I think it's dangerous, they could commit any crime they like and not be charged, who knows how many people's rights get violated because they take advantage of that.
So how did it get decided that diplomats are free from being charged with criminal acts? That's so wrong.

Answer 1

Basically, it prevents a government from harassing diplomats by charging them with minor crimes.

Now, they aren't immune from all crimes. Generally, they can be arrested for things like murder and drug smuggling.

Also, a host country can expel any diplomat it wants, so if there is one causing trouble, they can just kick him out of the country.

Answer 2

Diplomatic Immunity is actually a very import concept. Every nation sends diplomats around the world to work in embassies. The concept is the same as the white flag. We want our diplomats to be able to reside in the country free of potential political oppresion. Each country honors Diplomatic Immunity because they fear the 'tit for tat' concequences.

The whole concept has been around for centuries. The legalization of it however started with the 1814 Congress of Vienna.

Now here's the catch. Diplomatic Immunity can, and often is, waived. A few years ago a Georgian diplomat drove his car drunk and killed a few people in DC, including (if I remember correctly) a little girl. The police arrested him and, upon finding out he was a diplomat, released him. The American government contacted the Georgian embassy and asked that the immunity for this person be waived. The Georgians agreed and he was sentenced to a US prison for manslaughter.

Now not everyone can get away with all crimes. See the legal aspects of diplomatic immunity here: http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9127.htm
This link basically says that the janitor can get away with far less then the ambassador.

Answer 3

Because of a treaty called the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The immunity is actually possessed by the sending country, NOT the individual diplomat. If the diplomat commits a horrendous enough crime, immunity can be (and has been) waived.

Answer 4

Diplomats are not automatically immune from charges, their government must invoke the immunity clause after a charge.
Many times a diplomat's country will refuse to grant the immunity for a heinous crime. In addition, a country must apply with the host country for immunity priviledges for each diplomat, and it is not always guaranteed. A host country can also strip any diplomat of immunity for future offenses, and can order them out of the country within 48 hours.
The concept is that diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from being arrested in a hostile country as revenge.

Answer 5

I think that you're porbably talking about diplomatic immunity, so I'm gonna go off of that. It basically takes places when the diplomat is in a country other than his own.

The reason that this is a good thing is because arresting a diplomat from a foreign powers could lead to war been nations or the arrest of any and all diplomats in the other country. This would not be a good thing.

I would keep with diplomatic immunity, mostly because a few minor crimes is not worth an all out war, or even a cold war.

Answer 6

Criminal Record Search Database : http://SearchVerifyInfos.com/Help

Answer 7

I concur with Downriver Dave's answer.

Let me add, however, that assuming diplomatic immunity is not waived, the diplomat could still be prosecuted or sued (for injury) in their own country for acts that take place here.

Answer 8

I think that "Diplomatic Immunity" laws suck.
But it seems someone in our government thought it was necessary that we bite the bullet in return for whatever favors are garnered as a result of it.

Answer 9

International law

Answer 10

Because they got the weapons, the money and the power and they can't care less about the people. A bunch of criminals in few words