Posted on Mar 12, 2023
Georgia lawmakers look to limit state prosecutors' powers
1.32K
16
6
10
10
0
Georgia’s Republican legislators are pushing bills that would make it easier to remove local prosecutors from office. They’ve passed both the state’s Republican-controlled House and Senate. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp is expected to sign the legislation in the coming weeks after the two chambers reconcile technical differences in the texts of their respective bills.
Republican lawmakers say the measures are needed to rein in reform-minded prosecutors and increase accountability of local prosecutors. Critics say the bills undermine the will of the voters by removing minority prosecutors.
What kind of support do these bills have from Georgians? And how will they affect Georgia’s state politics?
Republican lawmakers say the measures are needed to rein in reform-minded prosecutors and increase accountability of local prosecutors. Critics say the bills undermine the will of the voters by removing minority prosecutors.
What kind of support do these bills have from Georgians? And how will they affect Georgia’s state politics?
Georgia lawmakers look to limit state prosecutors' powers
Posted from the1a.org
Republicans
Law
Crime
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Interesting article. It's a dual-edged sword. I am for executive review (prosecutors are part of the executive branch) by the legislature but the real thing will be in the details.
One thing the advocates of the bill say it will target is 'activist prosecutors' where those prosecutors won't persecutor crime 'they don't agree with'. The opponents say it will be just "political retribution" and possible "racial discrimination" (assuming the prosecutor they are targeting is a minority).
I do appreciate you posting these 'podcasts' from WAMU because the discussions (in the two I've listened to) were balanced and non-partisan (or at least equally partisan).
One thing the advocates of the bill say it will target is 'activist prosecutors' where those prosecutors won't persecutor crime 'they don't agree with'. The opponents say it will be just "political retribution" and possible "racial discrimination" (assuming the prosecutor they are targeting is a minority).
I do appreciate you posting these 'podcasts' from WAMU because the discussions (in the two I've listened to) were balanced and non-partisan (or at least equally partisan).
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
This system is foundational corrupt ... against U.S. Citizens
1.) “Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability, which means that they cannot be sued for their decisions as prosecutors, no matter how outrageous their conduct. The Supreme Court has held that absolute immunity protects prosecutors who knowingly used false testimony and suppressed evidence in a murder trial.”
http://bostonreview.net/law-justice/kate-levine-joanna-schwartz-hold-prosecutors-accountable-too
2.) “Prosecutorial immunity” is a judge-made doctrine that cloaks prosecutors in near-absolute immunity from suit. Under this doctrine, prosecutors cannot be sued for any actions related to their job as a prosecutor, no matter how egregious the behavior.
Prosecutorial immunity is an absolute shield against damages lawsuits for claims that arise from prosecutorial actions. Believing that the constant worry of lawsuits would impede prosecutors’ ability to do their job, in its 1976 decision Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court created this immunity to serve the “public trust” and ensure “the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.”
SOURCE : https://ij.org/immunity-for-prosecutorial-conduct/
3.) Immunity for Prosecutors
Here’s a non-exhaustive list of the type of misconduct for which prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity because these actions purportedly relate to their role in the judicial process:
* Falsifying evidence
* Coercing witnesses
* Soliciting and knowingly sponsoring perjured testimony
* Withholding exculpatory evidence and/or evidence of innocence
* Introducing evidence known to be illegally seized at trial
* Initiating a prosecution in bad faith (in other words, for personal reasons or with knowledge that the individual didn’t commit the crime)
“This absolute protection for prosecutors was made up wholesale by judges; it does not appear in the Constitution or in any law passed by Congress. In fact, Section 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) expressly says “every person” who violates the rights of another “shall be liable to the party injured.” 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.
But courts have read in a special exception for prosecutors. In other words, judges (all of whom are lawyers and many of whom are former prosecutors) decided that prosecutors should have complete immunity from suit, no matter how intentionally wrongful their conduct. By comparison, qualified immunity for police officers protects an officer only if his conduct was not clearly wrong.”
SOURCE : https://www.nlg-npap.org/absolute-immunity/
1.) “Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability, which means that they cannot be sued for their decisions as prosecutors, no matter how outrageous their conduct. The Supreme Court has held that absolute immunity protects prosecutors who knowingly used false testimony and suppressed evidence in a murder trial.”
http://bostonreview.net/law-justice/kate-levine-joanna-schwartz-hold-prosecutors-accountable-too
2.) “Prosecutorial immunity” is a judge-made doctrine that cloaks prosecutors in near-absolute immunity from suit. Under this doctrine, prosecutors cannot be sued for any actions related to their job as a prosecutor, no matter how egregious the behavior.
Prosecutorial immunity is an absolute shield against damages lawsuits for claims that arise from prosecutorial actions. Believing that the constant worry of lawsuits would impede prosecutors’ ability to do their job, in its 1976 decision Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court created this immunity to serve the “public trust” and ensure “the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.”
SOURCE : https://ij.org/immunity-for-prosecutorial-conduct/
3.) Immunity for Prosecutors
Here’s a non-exhaustive list of the type of misconduct for which prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity because these actions purportedly relate to their role in the judicial process:
* Falsifying evidence
* Coercing witnesses
* Soliciting and knowingly sponsoring perjured testimony
* Withholding exculpatory evidence and/or evidence of innocence
* Introducing evidence known to be illegally seized at trial
* Initiating a prosecution in bad faith (in other words, for personal reasons or with knowledge that the individual didn’t commit the crime)
“This absolute protection for prosecutors was made up wholesale by judges; it does not appear in the Constitution or in any law passed by Congress. In fact, Section 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) expressly says “every person” who violates the rights of another “shall be liable to the party injured.” 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.
But courts have read in a special exception for prosecutors. In other words, judges (all of whom are lawyers and many of whom are former prosecutors) decided that prosecutors should have complete immunity from suit, no matter how intentionally wrongful their conduct. By comparison, qualified immunity for police officers protects an officer only if his conduct was not clearly wrong.”
SOURCE : https://www.nlg-npap.org/absolute-immunity/
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google