> But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder!
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that subjecting people to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they claim residence regardless of where their actions take place would be "bad precedence"?
In the case where an individual who claims residence in Jurisdiction A (where murder is illegal) travels to and commits murder in Jurisdiction B (where murder is illegal).
Clearly some form of "double jeopardy" would be bad and odd cases with conflicting laws can get complex.
But, overall, the notation that you abide by all laws of the land in which you claim citizenship as well as the land in which you currently physically occupy seems to be a "good precedence".
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that subjecting people to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they claim residence regardless of where their actions take place would be "bad precedence"?
In the case where an individual who claims residence in Jurisdiction A (where murder is illegal) travels to and commits murder in Jurisdiction B (where murder is illegal).
Clearly some form of "double jeopardy" would be bad and odd cases with conflicting laws can get complex.
But, overall, the notation that you abide by all laws of the land in which you claim citizenship as well as the land in which you currently physically occupy seems to be a "good precedence".