Explain the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity for prosecutors

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity—complete freedom from civil liability—for everything they do with regard to the core prosecutorial functions of initiating criminal charges and pursuing criminal convictions as the government's advocate (Imbler v. Pachtman 1976).
Such absolute immunity extends to all actions, even those motivated by ill will or bad faith, concerning filing or declining to file criminal charges, plea bargaining, and presenting arguments or evidence in court. For example, a defendant whose conviction is overturned on appeal (and is later found not guilty) cannot sue the prosecutor for malpractice. The appellate court reversal is viewed as a sufficient remedy. In contrast, when prosecutors are not acting as the government's advocate in some judicial phase of the criminal justice process, they enjoy only qualified immunity for their actions. Qualified immunity shields prosecutors from civil liability for acts beyond those associated with courtroom advocacy, but still within the scope of their professional duties (such as when advising the police or speaking to the media), but only if they are acting in good faith that they are not violating any law or ethical rule of which a reasonable person in his or position would be aware.