Tim Hoover, who's been doing this federal stuff much longer than I have, writes that the statute involved is 18 USC 2423(b):
Sec. 2423. - Transportation of minors"The putative basis is Congress' ability to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Interstate travel, ok. Foreign travel, that's a real stretch, constitutionally. . . I think (b) was added more recently, perhaps last year as part of the PROTECT Act. "
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Sexual Act With a Juvenile. -
A person who travels in interstate commerce, or conspires to do so, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, or conspires to do so, for the purpose of engaging in any sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
Richard Campbell provides these insights:
>What's the basis for jurisdiction?
"Nationality jurisdiction" or "you're an American, you're automatically subject to US law."
There are 5 more or less accepted principles for when a country has a basis for jurisdiction for an act committed outside its borders:
Territorial - if the act was does inside the country or was intended to produce harm inside the country (smuggling drugs destined for the US, say).
Nationality - a country can exercise jurisdiction over its citizens.
Protective - similar to the target country piece of territoriality, allows the assertion of jurisdiction where an act threatens the country's national security or governmental functions.
Universal - for crimes like piracy and terrorism, any country may assert jurisdiction (this is much more controversial, like the Belgian attempt to assert jurisdiction over all war crimes).
Passive Personal - if an act was against a person from the target country (murdering an American, say).
In this case, there is an explicit law making sex tourism a rather harshly punishable crime.
[ed. comment: Here Richard answers the question I asked (jurisdiction) while Tim answered the question I meant to ask: What are the constitutional underpinnings of statutes allowing the federal government to do this? Funny, I would have expected some sort of answer having to do with the federal government's unique role as the entity which deals with foreign powers]
>Is there a crime in the U.S. code which makes it illegal to conspire to violate a U.S. law in another country? Is there a statute in the U.S. code which makes it illegal to conspire to violate another country's laws?
18 USC § 2423, while not as general, makes it illegal to:
"(b) Travel with intent to engage in illicitsexual conductt. A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
(c) Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both."
"illicit sexual conduct" is defined elsewhere to include child prostitution, rape, statutory rape and a couple of other things.
[ed.note: The statute as quoted by Richard is the proper statute. Strangely none of the public sources (FindLaw, Cornell, or even the House of Representatives) shows the change. I had to go to WestLaw to confirm. This is the modern language although the article does seem to indicate that the Defendant must have been charged under the older version. Not that it did him any good.]
Thanks to everybody else who wrote in as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment