If Torts Replace Violence, Does Immunity Morally and Intellectually Justify Violence?

A criminal defendant was falsely convicted and sued the prosecutor for withholding exculpatory evidence. He admitted the immunity of prosecutors. However, he charged the supervisors negligently trained the prosecutors, an administrative function, no part of the duties of an officer of the court.

In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held training was all part of the acts of the office, and rejected any liability. Prosecutors therefore have absolute immunity.

This is an appalling injustice. These are absolutely incompetent government slackers who need liability to motivate an improvement in what they do. They fail to prosecute the overwhelming majority of crimes. When they decide to prosecute, there is an unknown but large fraction of innocence. If the prosecutor embarrasses the office, he is an at will employee. He will likely lose his job after a suitable face saving interval.

So this is the question. If torts liability replaces violence, does immunity morally and intellectually justify violence?