Putting on the serious hat for a change:
sundaymorningstaple wrote:Actually, I think that would be an excellent topic.
"Should foreign ambassadors be held liable for their illegal actions in foreign countries that they are assigned to?"
and to go further on the same topic,
Should diplomats be extradited back to the country they committed the crime in if they do a runner like a coward?
Short answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity
Long answer: Yes, that actually is pretty much how it works. While Singapore cannot charge a fully accredited diplomat, they can request that Romania waive the guy's immunity and either extradite him back to Singapore to face trial or try him for the same crime in Romania -- and, in this case, I'd give pretty good odds of this happening, because murder is about as serious an offense as it gets, his actions had nothing whatsoever to do with his job and the EU generally keeps its diplomats in line.
Things only get problematic when you're dealing with some basketcase regime where all diplomats are relatives of the local big kahuna who will never be extradited no matter they do... but even then, most countries figure this is the price you pay to avoid having your own diplomats get thrown in jail in some third-world hellhole on trumped-up charges.
Incidentally, things like this have happened before in Romania... only last time the guy killed was Romanian and the American prep got away scot-free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter
and one step further, should citizens of the same country be allowed into the country the crime was committed in while the fleeing diplomat remains at large?
That seems to be Gaddafi's approach: his son Hannibal -- who isn't even a diplomat -- was briefly detained in Switzerland after beating up several hotel staff. In response, the Brotherly Leader broke off diplomatic relations, boycotted all Swiss goods, arrested all Swiss nationals in the country and slapped them with 16-month jail terms.