The Right Not To Be Framed

If being framed does not constitute a violation of the fifth amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, then the phrase "due process" has no meaning.

They're supposed to be immune in the course of their duties. That makes sense.

However, falsifying evidence should not be among their duties! Isn't it a crime? Why aren't they being prosecuted for that?

The devil, as usual, will be in the details, but if you don't give judges and prosecutors very strong immunity protection from lawsuits we have to worry about them being sued by people who CLAIM that the prosecutors were framing them and knew they were innocent, even though that isn’t so. It can take a lot of time, effort and money to disprove such allegations. We want our prosecutors and judges to be doing their job, not fighting lawsuits all the time.

Scalia has already gone on record saying it doesn't matter if someone is innocent. What matters is that rich white people feel safe.

God forbid you do some journalism Drum, but how IS this a civil case and not a criminal or Federal Civil Rights case?

The dirty prosecutors and their defenders are ignoring the Ninth Amendment to the COTUS, which says there are unenumerated rights. So all that is needed is a good case for the right, not it's being listing in the Constitution. BTW I thought a case could often be both a civil and criminal case, as shown in the OJ travails.

Similar

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Jeanine.Nicarico.2.323109.html

Cruz and Hernandez were set free in 1995 and, along with Buckley, reached a $3.5 million settlement with DuPage County. Seven county law enforcement officials were charged with conspiring to frame Cruz, but they were acquitted.

The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."

Nevermind that there is no freestanding constituional right not to be sued for magisterial misconduct (or whatever it's called when prosecutors frame the innocent), but the Supreme (that means they're better than you) Court conjured up some rights for them anyway. Guilty until proven innocent, always the burden of proof is on the peons, not the elite, that's the first thing you learn about law.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing we have not heard much on this from the libertarians - the very folks who screamed about Kelo meaning tyranny. That bothers me. If the state can frame me, I am not so worried about them seizing my home with some sort of compensation.

Just another chink in their tiresome claims of moral clarity...

Another thing - we don't (and we just can't) utterly shield cops from various legal jeopardy. You know, I get the common law shield for judges - but if police, who get shot at and whatnot with some regularity can be exposed to civil and criminal action without all quitting, well then such absolute shields are bunk.

The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."

What about them violating their oaths of office?
And while I may have slept through college, aren't there provisions in the Fifth, Sixth, and or Eighth Amendments requiring fair trials, due process, and that there be no cruel and unusual punishments (being imprisoned when you're innocent would certainly count as cruel)?
Prosecutors may have the power to charge people with crimes, compel testimony where the law requires, etc. BUT THEY STILL NEED TO ANSWER TO THE LAW THEMSELVES.

Sanders' argument is preposterous on the face of it. So he can count on Thomas AND Scalia.

Perhaps an argument exists for making them immune to civil suites -- in which case, they should be subject to the harshest possible criminal penalties.