I'm no legal expert, but I think when the government throws immunity at an uncooperative witness it just isn't fair. Now being that this is a mafia related board, I'll give an appropriate example.

Say some poor schmuck gets in deep debt to shylocks. His name then gets picked up on a wiretap, so the feds show up at his door asking questions. They're sure to point out to him that "he hasn't done anything wrong and that he's not a 'target' of any investigation." He then tells them he doesn't know what they're talking about. The feds then make a veiled threat and leave.

A year later, the same poor bastard gets a Grand Jury subpoena. When he shows up, he's again told that he's "not a 'target' of this investigation, but that his cooperation is expected." He then goes on the stand and tries to "take the fifth." The feds then come back at him with an immunity order.

Now the guy is REALLY stuck between a rock and a hard place. He either lies out of fear of the mob and risks being charged with perjury, tells the truth and risks the consequences, or goes to jail for contempt. And all this when he wasn't even a "target" of the investigation. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't England---who we got the system from in the first place---do away with Grand Juries?