Talk:Witness immunity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:12, 13 January 2010

Law Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested Move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Immunity from prosecution.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article is misleading and mistakes two distinct legal concepts. "Prosecutorial immunity" refers to the qualified immunity prosecutors receive for official acts (in the same way "judicial immunity" refers to the immunity enjoyed by judges), not a witness' immunity from prosecution. To correct this confusion, I propose moving this article to "Immunity from prosecution" and redirecting "Prosecutorial immunity" to "qualified immunity."-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support move and redirect. "Prosecutorial immunity" is ambiguous at best. "Immunity from prosecution" is clearer. Station1 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article title is a mistake. Joeldl (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

United States only?

If this article is about a concept and a practice that are unique to the United States, shouldn't it say that? If in fact these types of immunity are available in other countries (and I kind of suspect that they are), shouldn't the article cover them too? Or does Wikipedia, which claims to be international, in fact have (as some critics claim) an overwhelming and parochial bias to U.S. topics, as if the rest of the world just doesn't matter? Only asking ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.241.144 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]