Double Jeopardy with grooming I was reading an article about a paedophile in Scotland that abused teenagers in the UK but also the USA through the internet. Here is a link to the news story Independent article Given that some of the victims reside in the United States of America, I was surprised that he was not extradited there. However, from my understanding of Double Jeopardy this should be impossible since he would be punished twice for the same crime. I found another article where a paedophile from Scotland was not extradited to the USA for the same type of crime, however I could not understand the article. It appears he was kept in Scotland because of his condition more than anything else... scottishlegal article My question is whether in the UK (England and Wales) somebody could be extradited to the USA for the same offence? What if they had already been charged for it in the UK?
Multiple victims = multiple crimes The victim(s) in the USA and Scotland are unlikely to be the same person(s) - a separate crime is committed for each event against each victim. Double jeopardy is not applicable just as if the person had robbed a bank in the USA and another bank in Scotland. Notwithstanding, double jeopardy only applies within the same jurisdiction. If the person targeted one US victim once then they have committed a crime in Scotland, a crime in the USA and a crime against the specific US state - each jurisdiction can bring charges. However, for public policy reasons, jurisdictions are usually satisfied if an alleged perpetrator stand trial somewhere.
USA: 19 USC §1308 prohibits the import, export, or interstate sale of cat or dog fur: (1) In general It shall be unlawful for any person to— (A) import into, or export from, the United States any dog or cat fur product; or (B) introduce into interstate commerce, manufacture for introduction into interstate commerce, sell, trade, or advertise in interstate commerce, offer to sell, or transport or distribute in interstate commerce in the United States, any dog or cat fur product. A brief summary of state laws can be found this article at the Animal Legal &amp; Historical Center: A handful of states have laws concerning dog and cat fur. Alabama, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia prohibit trade in domestic dog or cat fur. Virginia also prohibits killing a dog or cat for its fur, while Florida prohibits killing a dog or cat with the “sole” intention of either selling or giving away the pelt of the animal. In Oregon, a person cannot buy or sell dog or cat fur that is obtained from “a process that kills or maims the cat or dog.” UK: In the UK, the trade in cat &amp; dog fur was banned by the The Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008, which were in turn passed to follow EU Regulation #1523/2007: The placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur shall be prohibited. More information about the legal consequences and enforcement of this law can be found at this review article. Finally, note that Cruella de Vil's actions did not involve trade in dog or cat fur; she acquired most of the puppies via legal means, and was planning to kill and skin them for her own personal use, not to sell the resulting articles to other parties. As such, I believe that her planned course of action would have been legal in the UK and in all US states except Virginia. The only unquestionably illegal act she undertook was directing Jasper &amp; Horace to steal Pongo's and Perdita's puppies.
The governing law would be the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). The relevant part is Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. Diplomats are also immune from civil and criminal prosecution. Technically, it wasn't a US diplomat but a family member, but by Article 37 they have the same protection. The linked article suggests that her diplomatic immunity ended, but that's a bit of a non-issue. The host nation (the UK in this case) can declare anyone, diplomats or family to be persona non grata which indeed ends diplomatic immunity, but only after the person is allowed to leave the host nation. And when the act happened, the immunity was in place. Immunity cannot retroactively be withdrawn by the host nation.
I am not a lawyer and I have never even been to the UK. You will not go to prison if your neighbor's dog attacks you and it dies as a result of you defending yourself. You might go to prison and/or owe the owner damages if: You are somewhere you do not technically have a right to be. It can be shown you could have retreated from harm but chose instead to stand your ground. The force you used was deemed excessive - it showed intent to harm the dog more than necessary to protect yourself You contributed to the confrontation in a way that a reasonable person would think might cause trouble You might be able to protect yourself from problems by: taking pictures or videos of the dog behaving badly or aggressively note dates and times when you observe the dog behaving badly or aggressively formally contact the dog's owner with your concerns and/or evidence in which you assert your rights to access the areas you walk through and your right to defend yourself in the event that you are attacked by the dog if possible, change your route or schedule to avoid the problem entirely Good luck
No. I can't give a more detailed answer without reference to a specific statute. But just about every state anti-bullying statute in the U.S. restricts the definition to...well, bullying. There is a good summary of state bullying and cyberbullying statutes here. The laws are varied, but they invariable contain words like "harassment", "abuse", "threatening," "fear," and "hostile environment." Would it be possible to "cyberbully" someone on Stack Exchange under some of these statutes? Sure. You could do it in comments; in answers; even in questions. "Question: Is Bill in my algebra class a dork, or a tool?" Comment: "This is a terrible question, and I'm going to burn your house down. Downvoting." You could probably fit something like that under some of the broader statutes--although they still for the most part haven't been tested for First Amendment issues. But I don't know of any statute broad enough to include downvoting a question or answer, on a site people post on knowing that the whole purpose of posting is to allow their posts to be upvoted and downvoted. If there was such a statute--and again, I don't know of any--it would almost certainly be unconstitutional. There is no law against hurting people's feelings, at least in the United States, and a law that allows people to seek legal redress for someone saying "I disagree with you" is pretty much the poster child for a First Amendment violation.
Scotland: Duty of finder - Section 67 of the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982 no threshold is stated, by non compliance fine of £ 50 Northern Ireland: Cash If you find cash, please hand this into your nearest police station. Cash that is not reunited with the owner is donated to charity. England: The item I've found is of low value or can't be directly identified to a person You don't need to report this to us. Please make reasonable enquiries to try to find the owner, these could include asking people nearby or in offices or shops. You could also consider leaving a note with your details. If you can't find the owner there's nothing more we can do and you should dispose of the item. Note: What is to be considered to be low value is not stated. Other jurasdictions have a threshold. In Germany it is € 10 (§ 965 (2) BGB). That would then be £ 8,43 at the present rate. For any amount larger, it must be reported to the police. If the owner is not found (again dependent on jurasdiction) it may be given to you. If the owner is found, a reward between 3 and 5% can be claimed (§ 971 BGB). Section 965 - German Civil Code (BGB) Duty of the finder to notify (1) A person who finds a lost thing and takes possession of it must without undue delay notify the loser or the owner or another person entitled to receive. (2) If the finder does not know the person entitled to receive or does not know that person’s whereabouts, the finder must without undue delay notify the competent authority of the finding and the circumstances that may be material to determine the person entitled to receive. If the thing is not worth more than ten euros, no notification is necessary. Note: The original version of the law (1896) it was 3 Marks. Sources: Section 67 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 If you find treasure or lost goods - Citizens Advice Scotland Know What To Do - When You Have Lost or Found Property (Northern Ireland) Report lost or found property | The Met The item I've found is of low value or can't be directly identified to a person | The Met Section 965 - Duty of the finder to notify (Germany)
I emailed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the USA asking this and received the reply: "There is nothing to prevent you from marketing antiques in the UK while present in the US." I also contacted a relevant US attorney and received: "There’s nothing in your question which would implicate Colorado or US law. If you're a UK citizen, and the sale is happening in the UK while you're in the US, then the US has anything to do with it. So as long as the UK doesn’t have any problem with it, the US will not." So I would conclude this question fairly answered.
Strictly speaking, that principle isn't even true everywhere in the US. The maxim "nulla poena sine lege" (i.e. "no punishment without a prior penal statute") was historically applicable to civil law systems, such as are found in continental Europe. In common-law systems, there was never a tradition in which a crime wasn't a crime unless it violated a penal law, because crimes themselves were traditionally defined by court precedent instead of by statute. In US federal court, the only allowable common-law offense is contempt of court. This is due to a court decision (United States v. Hudson), in which the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have the constitutional authority to hear a case in which someone is accused of committing a common-law crime. Even so, and even though there is a federal contempt statute, the Supreme Court has ruled that contempt is an inherent power of any court, and statutes around it only regulate the power (but the power would be there even without a statute). At the state level, some states have explicitly passed laws saying something is not a crime if it doesn't violate the penal code (although this doesn't necessarily apply to contempt); see section 6 of the California Penal Code for an example. In other states, like Florida, common-law crimes still exist; Florida has a statute saying that any common-law offense is still a crime unless a statute has explicitly covered that same subject matter (section 775.01), and specifies a generic penalty for anything which is an offense at common law and not addressed by any Florida penal statute (section 775.02). While this is sort of statutory (as it's a statute giving the penal provision), it's also basically not (as no statute has to say "X is illegal," because it's enough that English common law makes X illegal).