Generate text that refutes this claim: Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.  By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry.  [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection)  [Accessed 22 September 2011]
eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity
No one doubts that politicians have to make morally difficult decisions, where sometimes every option is unpleasant. However, no one wants politicians to have an unrestricted ability to make ethical questionable decisions. That is exactly what immunity would deliver them. A politician who knows that they cannot be touched is incentivized and licensed to be much more brazen in their behavior when in office, and we want a bulwark against unrestricted rule-breaking. A state of affairs wherein politicians can sometimes be prosecuted creates the ideal amount of disincentive for politicians to break rules; they will do so only when there is a pressing need, and only to a moderate degree. Because of the plausible justifications for such acts, politicians need not fear prosecution in the overwhelming majority of cases. For instance, no official from either the UK or USA has been actually indicted with regard to highly-legally-dubious programs to torture detainees [1] [2] . Moreover, politicians are seldom prosecuted anyway, especially because they tend to belong to socioeconomic strata that punished less or not all compared to the rest of society. There is no legitimate need to give them more protection.  [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘CIA Officers Granted Immunity from Torture Prosecution’, The Atlantic, 16 April 2009,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Human Rights Education Association, ‘Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’, hrea.org,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]