That question isn't really meaningful, because commission of a crime is a basis for jurisdiction.
Generally if party A commits a crime against party B jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred, (2) the country A is a citizen of, and (3) the country B is a citizen of.
Unless you were snuffed out on federal land, I think state law would reign in this situation, and the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory. In fact, I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States, to further complicate matters.
you are arguing with people who are being academic to a fault, unable to see how they've been co-opted. that said, i appreciate the commentary from real lawyers - i LIKE academic stuff even if the real, hard embodied politics of it all is straightforward.
That's not true. Even the liberal interpretation of this recognizes that some people within the geographic boundary are not subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats and invading armies, for example.
So reversing the scenario - an illegal immigrant kills me - can't be prosecuted? Because they're not under US jurisdiction?
That question isn't really meaningful, because commission of a crime is a basis for jurisdiction.
Generally if party A commits a crime against party B jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred, (2) the country A is a citizen of, and (3) the country B is a citizen of.
> jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred
Or the birth, as it were?
10 replies →
Unless you were snuffed out on federal land, I think state law would reign in this situation, and the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory. In fact, I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States, to further complicate matters.
> the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory
Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically.
> I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States...
When was that?
2 replies →
[dead]
3 replies →
you are arguing with people who are being academic to a fault, unable to see how they've been co-opted. that said, i appreciate the commentary from real lawyers - i LIKE academic stuff even if the real, hard embodied politics of it all is straightforward.
jurisdiction is not dependent just on the person. it is a geographical encapsulation. all people within this boundary are subject to the jurisdiction.
That's not true. Even the liberal interpretation of this recognizes that some people within the geographic boundary are not subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats and invading armies, for example.