Posted on 12/06/2018 9:58:12 AM PST by marktwain
Four decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court implemented a major, nationwide policy that consolidated prosecutorial authority: it granted prosecutors absolute immunity for acts committed in their prosecutorial role. This decision sheathed prosecutors in protective armor while they pursued criminal convictions through an era of crime-related hysteria, and it eroded one of the few mechanisms available to hold prosecutors accountable. Considering the growing call to acknowledge and address an epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct, now is a critical time to reflect on Imbler v. Pachtman and evaluate whether it holds up to modern-day scrutiny.
In Imbler, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors are generally entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for actions, taken in their role as prosecutors, that may have violated the rights of a criminal defendant. Absolute immunity is exactly what it sounds like—a blanket and unconditional grant of protection from civil liability. A related doctrine, qualified immunity, also protects government officials from liability, but as the Supreme Court explained in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, only if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights . . . .” Put simply, qualified immunity protects government officials who abide by the rules (although the law defines those rules very narrowly). Absolute immunity protects them from civil liability even when they break the rules.
As some on the Imbler Court worried, courts have applied absolute immunity broadly, even foreclosing civil suits in cases where prosecutors intentionally violate their constitutional obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence to defendants as required by Brady v. Maryland.
SCOTUS’s Imbler decision has been critiqued over the years. The opinion turned on two key considerations:
(Excerpt) Read more at acslaw.org ...
The Scales of Justice need re-balancing..................
Thanks for posting.
The more I think of Mueller the more I think of my Patriot ancestors who fought the Revolution: what would think of this SOB? Did they fight the Revoltion to establish a Prussian police state (those are Bob’s ancestors)?
In fact, self appointed Grand Inquisitor Mueller is everything they fought to eradicate.
The American state values government accountability and citizen sovereignty over everything. To anoint themselves as Untouchables - remember, the Court did this, and they ARE the lawyers themselves - goes against everything that was fought for and re-establishes a Nobility that answers to no one.
Mueller set out to destroy Trump, but will end up destroying himself and everything that was erected to prop up guys like him.
Prosecutors often make decisions influenced by public pressure and political considerations. The elephant in the room is that judges do as well, and no one has more bulletproof immunity than judges.
It’s LONG, LONG, LONG past due. Too many Nifongs, Muellers and Waco Biker case prosecutors have been running wild, totally protected from accountability.
Some prosecutors have sent people to their deaths to further their careers.
No immunity. Same penalty for them, as for anyone else. Death penalty for them, if they send someone to their deaths unjustly.
End it!!
They bring this upon themselves. Just like “Lying to FBI agent is a crime.” That should be changed also: They bring this upon themselves.
You betchum Red Ryder !
In my opinion, corruption starts at the local level, and certainly prosecutorial immunity exacerbates that corruption. I am all in favor of holding prosecutors accountable for their misdeeds. They do not serve the side of light anymore. It isn’t just Mueller, it is almost all of them.
The police agencies can lie with impunity, but if you or I mis-remember something, it’s a punishable offense?
That is not right, nor just.
Most people see it that way.
It is a bit more nuanced.
But it has come to be another weapon that federal prosecutors use to hammer suspects into submission.
The really horrific use of this is as a political weapon, as was done to get rid of Senator Stevens (R) from Alaska, or in the Enron case, to destroy innocents for political points, or in the case of DeLay in Texas to remove a sitting Republican Representative.
Of course, Muller is the current horror.
Almost all instances of this as a political tool are examples of it being used against Conservatives.
Why? Because the Media still mostly protects the left.
NO ONE should be immune from accountability for their actions. Prosecutors have the power to utterly ruin someone’s life - and, as the saying goes:
“With great power, comes great responsibility.”
Well, where’s the responsibility for the prosecutors? Right now, it doesn’t exist...and, human nature being what it is, many of them are taking full advantage of that immunity by doing outrageous things to completely innocent people, just to bolster their conviction rates or to get a particular person.
The very idea of immunity like this is anathema to our system of laws and our moral system. It is one thing to say that our 535 Representatives and Senators are immune from libel suits for what they say on the floor of Congress, but immunity for prosecutors who number in the tens of thousands nationwide for ANYTHING (not just speech, but anything that they do as prosecutors) is absurd, and a huge problem. I absolutely believe that this immunity needs to be rescinded - by act of Congress, if need be. Qualified immunity - that I’m fine with, but NOT absolute immunity.
Exactly. But the whole point of acquiring power, on the Left, is to *avoid* responsibility.
The Left *never* accept accountability for *anything*. The entire schtik of the Left is to shift responsibility to someone or something else.
Individuals are *never* to be held responsible for actions, unless such responsibility can be used as a lever to remove enemies from power, to gain power for the Left.
Yeah your right, prosecutors should be afraid every time they file a Criminal case that the defendant will sue them. And based on our litigious society they will be sued every single time for all things real and imaginary. As a result prosecutors will let the guilty go free rather than prosecute and subject themselves to the slot machine justice of civil courts. In fact who would want the job if every dirtbag can sue you for money damages just for doing your job? I wouldn’t and I prosecuted criminals for many years.
Your ideas are counter productive. The USSC granted absolute immunity to make sure prosecutors are not intimidated from doing their duty by being concerned about civil suits. The few bad prosecutors can be dealt with without destroying the ability to prosecute criminals all across the nation.
Qualified immunity would protect prosecutors from frivolous suits, IF THEY FOLLOW THE ACCEPTED RULES.
The problem here is ABSOLUTE immunity - i.e. there ARE no rules for them. Prosecutors, like the rest of us humans, don’t sport wings and halos - they’re not immune to selfishness, hatred and other base emotions, regardless of their title and professing how ethical they are.
NO ONE should be unaccountable.
That said, anyone bringing a case against a prosecutor should have to prove that the prosecutor was guilty of some minimum standard of abuse of authority, or their lawyer gets disbarred and they have to pay for the prosecutor’s legal defense - and maybe they should have to post a bond to secure that payment. Such an arrangement will weed out 95% of frivolous suits.
But the idea that prosecutors should be utterly immune for ANY act, no matter how heinous, that they commit while wearing their prosecutor’s hat is absurd and unjust in the extreme.
You obviously have no experience in the legal system so your idealistic notions are great for a classroom but utterly fail in real life.
It is interesting that the only dirtbags that pimp this notion to allow prosecutors to be intimidated are far left wing law professors, the ACLU and defense attorneys like the author of this idiotic article. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled this for a good reason. Only those that want to get rich suing the public want to change it. That alone should pause all the idealistic do gooders who live in utopia.
Wrong. Prosecutors lose their license by overstepping. See Nifong. You don’t throw out the whole effective system of law enforcement because of a bad apple.
All prosecutors are corrupt, really? You are an idiot.
Go down to your police station or place where victims of crime go and try preaching that idiocy to people who actually depend on their prosecutors to see that justice is done.
Better yet, don’t hide behind anonymity, play your keyboard warrior role using your real name so all of your friends, associates and employer can see what you really think of law enforcement and they can judge you for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.