American criminal justice system enforces our laws and keeps watch over us but who is watching over the system? Oversight over the system may after all, be less than optimal going by various criminal cases tainted by prosecutorial misconduct resulting in wrongful convictions. From law enforcement, the elected officials, the court system, to corrections, prosecutorial misconduct gained notoriety because of the absolute immunity they enjoy. According to Silverglate, (2000), “We now live in a time of sharply decreasing faith in the criminal justice system.” This decreasing faith might not be unconnected to the egregiously bad behavior that dots the criminal justice landscape. Much about American criminal justice is indeed good. The system provides
…show more content…
There’s also a fear that a wave of frivolous filings can clog up the court system if prosecutors are opened up to lawsuits. While there is merit to these arguments, there are very sound argument against this position. For example, some states allowed a paths for state lawsuits for damages caused by prosecutorial misconduct, and there’s little evidence that those states have been opened to a barrage of frivolous suits. Regarding the fear of retaliation, the damages are paid by the prosecutor’s employers and never by the prosecutors themselves. Scott Greenfield, no fan of absolute immunity, has provided the following counter-argument. The “floodgates” rationale is the more pernicious justification, a theoretical travesty that has never come to pass. Already, federal district courts are “deluged” with silly, frivolous § 1983 actions, and yet they’ve managed to vet them without breaking a sweat. (Balko, 2014).
The ethical questions raised by prosecutorial absolute immunity is why can we sue doctors who sometimes unknowingly make honest mistake in the course of performing their job, but not prosecutors who sometimes, deliberately commit perjury in order to get an innocent
There’s also a fear that a wave of frivolous filings can clog up the court system if prosecutors are opened up to lawsuits. While there is merit to these arguments, there are very sound argument against this position. For example, some states allowed a paths for state lawsuits for damages caused by prosecutorial misconduct, and there’s little evidence that those states have been opened to a barrage of frivolous suits. Regarding the fear of retaliation, the damages are paid by the prosecutor’s employers and never by the prosecutors themselves. Scott Greenfield, no fan of absolute immunity, has provided the following counter-argument. The “floodgates” rationale is the more pernicious justification, a theoretical travesty that has never come to pass. Already, federal district courts are “deluged” with silly, frivolous § 1983 actions, and yet they’ve managed to vet them without breaking a sweat. (Balko, 2014).
The ethical questions raised by prosecutorial absolute immunity is why can we sue doctors who sometimes unknowingly make honest mistake in the course of performing their job, but not prosecutors who sometimes, deliberately commit perjury in order to get an innocent