Crime in International Context Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Crime in International Context - Essay Example The researcher states that application of the state-territorial principle is argued to give rise to a dualistic approach towards a particular crime because of the significant amount of differences between countries’ stance and legislation to tackle to various offenses. The exact nature and limitation of this principle will be discussed through the example of Raymond Davis and Aafia Siddiqui in later parts of the prose to help further understanding of the state-territorial principle and why criminologists need to look beyond it. The substance of this prose will systematically assess all aspects of transnational crimes and demonstrate both national and international contexts in which the crime is prosecuted and demonstrate it primarily through the scourge of human trafficking in the United States. The prose will also assess the strategies adopted by countries to help curb the problem. II. State-Territorial Principle The state-territorial principle dictates that sovereign states are able to prosecute crimes that are committed within their borders and hence, triggers a number of complications when it comes to dealing with crimes that require legislation beyond the country’s borders. The principle bars the country from exercising control and prosecuting the perpetrator outside its border. However, the principle stands null and void for those countries that possess universal jurisdiction or those who have been granted to exercise their control by other principles such as the â€Å"Principle of nationality†, â€Å"the passive personality principle† or the ‘protective principle†. The territorial principle is based on the premise that criminal jurisdiction is based on the place where the crime was perpetrated. Having defined the state territorial principle and the dynamics involved in its application on the prosecution and tackling of crimes, criminologists have often argued that criminology needs to move beyond the state-territor ial principle. It is a logical approach to decide the course of jurisdiction; however, there are several arguments for and against it. As the state-territorial principle bars research analysts from establishing theories to study international and transnational crimes. It is an undeniable fact that every country establishes legislation to tackle crimes according to the perception and gravity of the crime that depends upon the cultural stance of the country. Therefore, in order to pave way for the researcher and establish a more uniform approach to these crimes, it is important to move beyond the state –territorial principle. Furthermore, sometimes people may feel that the culprit of a transnational crime has not received a punishment that is proportional or equal to his or her offence; however, it is the country’s law and regulation that allow that punishment for the crime as a result in order to draw a verdict that is acceptable to the legal system of both countries. S tate territorial principle has been met with a highly dual approach by researchers and critics. Some critics have argued, â€Å"As a matter of convenience crimes should be dealt with by those states whose social order is most closely affected, and in general this will be the state on whose territories the crime are committed†¦