代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

Immunity for U.S. prosecutors

2019-02-12 来源: 51due教员组 类别: 更多范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- Immunity for U.S. prosecutors,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了美国检察官的豁免权。在美国,检察官的豁免权指的是检察官在履行职责时,对职务行为导致的他人损失,视情况绝对地或者附条件地不承担民事赔偿责任的权利。虽然检察官的责任豁免只限于免除民事损害赔偿责任,并不意味着他们能够免除刑事责任与职业纪律的制裁。根据国家豁免原则,美国联邦政府机构和各州政府机构,不会因为普通法上的侵权行为被起诉,但具体的政府官员却有可能被起诉追责。

Immunity,美国检察官的豁免权,assignment代写,paper代写,北美作业代写

In common law countries, immunity refers to "the legal status of a person who does not bear certain legal consequences or does not apply certain legal rules to him. It is a kind of special privilege that the law does not give the person according to general rules". Immunity was originally created by judges and reflects a social policy whereby a particular subject is exempt from liability on the basis of a particular identity. For example, granting certain exemptions to charitable organizations is to encourage people to do more charitable activities. The exemption of each other's torts is to maintain the stability and harmony of the family. In common law countries, judges have absolute immunity. Lord denning of England said: "since 1613 our laws have made it a rule that nothing a judge says or does in his jurisdiction can be the subject of an action. The words of a judge are absolutely protected. The order issued by the judge and the penalty imposed by the judge cannot be the object of the civil action against the judge. For the prosecutor, "the absolute immunity of the prosecutor at common law is not on as firm a basis as that of the judge, but it is also on a considerable basis. In the past and present, the general rule has been that prosecutors have absolute immunity from malicious prosecution. These common law exemptions were affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and became the basis for U.S. attorneys' immunity from damages. In the United States, the immunity of the prosecutor means the right of the prosecutor to bear absolutely or conditionally no civil liability for the loss of others caused by his official behavior when performing his duties. It must be pointed out that the exemption of prosecutors' liability is only limited to the exemption of civil damages, which does not mean that they can be exempted from criminal responsibility and professional discipline.

The immunity enjoyed by us prosecutors has deep historical roots. The understanding of official responsibility and government responsibility in common law countries can be traced back to England in the 13th century. In the feudal system, manor lords could establish courts to settle disputes between their vassals. Since this is a court established by the Lord, the Lord cannot be prosecuted here unless his consent is obtained. As the most senior Lord, the king could not be tried by the court without his consent. Torts may be attributed to the king's subordinates, but not to the king. The sovereign has immunity from pure tort-feasance but may take legal action against officials who exceed their statutory powers or refuse to fulfil their statutory obligations. In the United States, federal and state government agencies are not prosecuted for common law violations under the principle of national immunity. But specific government officials could be prosecuted. The phrase "the king does no wrong", as the legal proverb says, implies a waiver of state responsibility. In Europe, France in particular, has taken a different approach from the common law system: the state is liable, but the officials are not. The immunity granted to prosecutors in the judicial practice of the United States is based on the theoretical basis that "officials bear personal responsibility and state responsibility is exempted".

If the rights of American citizens are infringed by state or federal prosecutors, they can respectively initiate Section 1983 Action and Bivens Actio with the intention of making the prosecutor assume personal responsibility to the court.

"1983 action" is a lawsuit filed in federal court by citizens whose rights have been violated by state actors under title 42, section 1983, of the United States code. United States code 42nd weaving section 1983 was originally part of the Civil Rights Act (1871), whose main content is: the person in any state, region, or the district of Columbia, any laws, decrees, regulations, or practice in the name of deprived of any U.S. citizen or U.S. jurisdictions other personnel by the federal constitution and the law safeguard of any rights, privileges or immunities, should be liable for damage of the parties. If a victim wants to prosecute a "state actor" in his or her personal capacity, it is usually referred to as a "1983 section action". "State actors" include those whose power comes from state laws or practices, and state prosecutors are "state actors." To this end, when prosecutors violate the rights of plaintiffs under the federal constitution or statutes under the guise of state power, plaintiffs can claim compensatory and punitive damages for the personal status of state officials.

If the constitutional rights of citizens are violated by officials of the federal government, relevant relief measures originate from a case law of the United States Supreme Court, namely Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The law in the bivens suit is similar to that in the 1983 suit, and from the point of view of official immunity, the law in both cases is the same. "In the absence of instructions to the contrary from congress, it would be unwarranted, in the case of immunity, to draw a sharp line between litigation brought under section 1983 and those brought directly against federal officials under the constitution." "Federal officials do not enjoy greater protection than state officials when they violate federal constitutional rules." To make the two types of litigation truly "parallel," the Supreme Court introduced waivers from the 1983 section of litigation in the bivens suit. Now, when a court declares that some "state actors" have some immunity, it presumes that this right is also owned by "federal actors"; And vice versa. It should be noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act also provides relief to victims. The relief offered by Mr. Bivens's suit, however, is for individual officials, and the federal tort claims act is for the government. In the bivens case, the plaintiff may be awarded punitive damages, but this is prohibited in a claims action. Plaintiffs may not opt for jury review in a "claims action," but they can in a bivens action. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive, and even if the plaintiffs Sue the United States government under the federal tort claims act, they are entitled to the relief afforded by the bivens suit.

It should be pointed out that both the "1983 clause action" and the bivens action are intended to make the prosecutor assume personal responsibility. Once the prosecutor loses the lawsuit, he needs to compensate the plaintiff with personal property. The state attorney could argue that his actions were official and official, but that did not absolve him from personal responsibility.

In the United States, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for ACTS "closely related to the judicial stage of a criminal proceeding" and limited immunity for other ACTS. Prosecuting, appearing in court, making statements or eliciting false or derogatory language from witnesses, etc.; Public procurators enjoy limited immunity from ACTS of investigation, management, etc. Absolute immunity is an unconditional immunity, and there is no other factor that can overturn the protection of the interests of the right holder. Limited immunity can be overturned by certain facts and is no longer enjoyed by prosecutors who act in contravention of clearly established law.

In the United States, "the vast majority of officials granted absolute immunity are subject to other restraints to prevent their abuses from going uncorrected." This means that the power of an official is strictly restricted, which is actually a necessary condition for the official to obtain absolute immunity.

One of the purposes for which the United States grants immunity to prosecutors is to protect them from the burden of litigation in the performance of their duties. In the design of the system, special attention should be paid to prevent unreasonable disturbance caused to prosecutors in the process of investigating their responsibilities. In the 1983 case and in the bivens case brought by the victim, the prosecutor for the accused may claim immunity and request a summary judgment in his favor before the trial and discovery of evidence. A judge looks at an indicted prosecutor from the perspective of a rational and competent prosecutor, analyzes whether his conduct is closely related to the judicial process, and if not, continues to analyze whether he has violated a clearly defined law and whether he enjoys absolute or limited immunity. If it is believed that the accused prosecutor does not enjoy immunity, the request will be denied, the lawsuit will enter the stage of evidence discovery and substantive trial, and the prosecutor may finally bear the liability for compensation. If his claim is upheld, the plaintiff's action is lost. The immunity of the us prosecutor is not only the substantive right of defense, which can exempt the prosecutor from personal responsibility, but also a procedural right of claim, which can prevent the case from entering the stage of evidence discovery and trial.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供北美作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。

上一篇:British education in the conte 下一篇:The British charity council