Pope’s immunity to prosecution may be challenged in Britain

Source: The Raw Story

Protests are growing against Pope Benedict XVI's planned trip to Britain, where some lawyers question whether the Vatican's implicit statehood status should shield the pope from prosecution over sex crimes by pedophile priests.

More than 10,000 people have signed a petition on Downing Street's web site against the pope's 4-day visit to England and Scotland in September, which will cost U.K. taxpayers an estimated 15 million pounds ($22.5 million). The campaign has gained momentum as more Catholic sex abuse scandals have swept across Europe.

Although Benedict has not been accused of any crime, senior British lawyers are now examining whether the pope should have immunity as a head of state and whether he could be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction for an alleged systematic cover-up of sexual abuses by priests.

Universal jurisdiction — a concept in international law — allows judges to issue warrants for nearly any visitor accused of grievous crimes, no matter where they live. British judges have been more open to the concept than those in other countries.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0404/popes-immunity-prosecution-challenged-britain/

I know, it's no laughing matter, but the thought of the Pope getting comeuppance makes me giggle. Sorry.

...and various countries abroad engaged in a low rumble about doing what wasn't getting done in his own backyard re: war crimes.

If the Pope is immune within the protective walls of the Vatican, he may want to reconsider his future status as a "world traveler."

:patriot:

convicted in absentia of war crimes, he would just rot in jail pending appeal.

Got a link to a reliable source?

Clinton does a lot of traveling. It does not have to be to Serbia. After all, Adolph Eichmann was not captured in Israel.

ETA: Request for link w/drawn. Found it.

Of course, if Britain decided to try something like that their last few prime ministers might start looking over their shoulders a bit more.

Noriega, for example.

more serious crime than Drug Trafficking like what Noriega was arrested for.

It would appear there's more than ample precedent.

On the other hand, a Pope in full garb, testifying in a British court with their judge in full garb is interesting...on many levels.

But seriously, I refuse to believe that nothing can be done to bring Church leaders to justice. I hope the Brits make it happen. I truly do.

that the UK will not provide protection detail.

In this case, NAMBLA is not the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes.

Nice.
-p

He's as protected as a high-ranking criminal can get.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/again_and_again/3502510318/sizes/o/

At this point I'd like to see the fucker in prison :mad::mad::mad:

in the U.S. have a duty to report suspected child abuse of all kinds, but I don't think I have a legal duty to report it, if I suspect it. (I would report it, but that's irrelevant to my point.)

Anyone know offhand?

For priests, the disclosure typically comes during their own confession to another priest; and, historically, that has not had to be disclosed, even in a trial. It's something like the spousal privilege and the attorney-client privilege. Maybe that should change?

:evilgrin: