No, members of the Senate and the House of Commons have not passed laws to make themselves immune to prosecution. This is with the exception, however, of parliamentary privilege. Members of the Senate and the House of Commons cannot be charged with an offence based on things that they say within the parliamentary precinct. This is to ensure that members of both Houses of Parliament are able to enjoy unabridged free speech in the performance of their duties. (Members of the Senate and the House of Commons are not immune, however, to prosecution for any remarks made outside of those chambers.)
Incapacitation, is the goal of criminal sentencing that seeks to protect innocent members of society from offenders.
found this little bit of data on the subject...In summary, the laying of criminal charges against a member of the House of Commons or Senate carries no immediate legal implication. Even if a member is convicted, he or she can continue to sit, unless sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more. Nonetheless, the House and the Senate retain the power to expel their members who are facing criminal charges or are convicted but not sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more. However, this power is rarely used and certain provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms might protect parliamentarians in such circumstances.
Shield laws
shield laws
Criminal justice is used to protect society, get revenge, rehabilitate the criminal or for punishment. For a discussion of the issues see the related link below.
No
on non members the best armors to protect from melee are plate armors, or chain mail. on non members the best one you can get is rune plate.
This type of legislation is referred to as a shield law.
The first amendment to the constitution protects reporters.
He wants to protect Boo Radley from all the town gossip. he also wants to protect boo from getting punished by his brother
Slander, libel, and incitation to criminal acts.
i'll tell you why poachers are not punished because the government of these countries dont want to protect the tiger as it costs money