Who should have a blanked protection from prosecution or should it be abolished

Izovita Andrew


Who should have a blanked protection from prosecution or should it be abolished


A blanked protection from prosecution is a defense from the arrest, criminal liability. It is like a wall from the police, and the police can sentence a person only after the breaking of this wall. Immunity is like a safe which maintain a lot of secrets. A person who has immunity may be arrested, but his secrets shouldn’t be revealed to police.

Besides it there is another aspect of this The Office of Public is eager to abolish a blanket protection from prosecution and immunity. They consider that it helps to break laws and develops corruption. It is difficult to prove the guilt if a person has a blanked protection from prosecution. As for me, I agree with this thought. Really, why should somebody have immunity? Deputies have a strong power even without any protection from prosecution. They have a lot of opportunities and ways to earn money. Deputies have many advantages and privileges. Besides that, they are self-confident and try to be honest or generous only at TV programs. In reality they are cunning and spoiled persons. Our democratic country should not give any special advantages to anybody. We are all equal, so judgment should be equal for everybody. It is blind. When somebody has a blanket protection from prosecution, it destroys democracy and denies equal rights. To my mind, it is nonsense and stupidity.

There are different kinds of immunity and we shouldn’t mix them with a blanket protection from prosecution. For example, a lawyer knows everything about his client. He needs this material to defend his client, and, of course, he has no right to show this material in the Office of Public Protection. A doctor has some information about his patient. He/she knows some facts, but he/she has no right to disclose them. Nobody can make pressure on the doctor to announce the facts he/she knows about the patient.

A priest also knows about the person who tells everything and opens all the sins. But he can’t tell about them and police can’t demand to do it.

I suppose that such kinds of immunity are important and even necessary. They support people and build democracy in every country. They defend people and their rights.

So, in my opinion, we need immunity and we don’t need a blanket protection from prosecution. These things are contradictory, because one of them proves our democracy and the other breaks it.