Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on July 18, 2018, 10:41:41 AM
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/nyregion/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
An array of criminal justice advocates — civil libertarians, a law enforcement organization, even a group run by the industrialist Koch brothers — has joined forces to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the contentious doctrine of qualified immunity, which permits the authorities to avoid being sued for misconduct even when they violate the law.
The use of qualified immunity as a defense against lawsuits was first permitted by the Supreme Court in a ruling in 1967 designed to shield the police from financial liability: The court decided that if officers were not immune, they might be disinclined to carry out their official duties.
I thought this looked like an interesting issue. I was curious what opinions y'all have on this. My first thought is that it sounds like a good case to pursue. I am not certain what sort of consequences this would have.
-
My opinion is that bad actors have used qualified immunity all too often as a shield to hide behind. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" has been a judicial doctrine for most of modern history, and I believe those tasked with enforcing the law should know it better than anyone. So to excuse blatant violations of the law under the doctrine of qualified immunity does nothing but create a special class of people who may violate the rights of others under color of law and then claim immunity. So yeah. I think it needs to go away yesterday.
-
My opinion is that bad actors have used qualified immunity all too often as a shield to hide behind. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" has been a judicial doctrine for most of modern history, and I believe those tasked with enforcing the law should know it better than anyone. So to excuse blatant violations of the law under the doctrine of qualified immunity does nothing but create a special class of people who may violate the rights of others under color of law and then claim immunity. So yeah. I think it needs to go away yesterday.
I have to agree. If I'm required to know the law and will be arrested in ignorance, a police officer ought to be required to know the law and be arrested for kidnapping if he doesn't have legal justification for an arrest.
Police officers, IF YOU AREN'T SURE A CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED, don't arrest someone.
Seems a pretty easy rule. It will also cut down on the "I don't like what you are doing, so I'm sure there's a crime here somewhere" enforcement.
-
And I know others on here have suggested it as well, but I think it goes in the same vein. If an officer or other law enforcement official is falsifying evidence, perjuring themselves, etc, I think they need to face the sentence that the victim of their perjury, etc would have faced. And yes, that includes the death penalty. If your lies would have gotten AN INNOCENT PERSON executed, I think you deserve the same fate that innocent person faced.
-
There has to be some immunity.
People do occasionally get knocked around during arrests picking up scrapes and bruises in the process and that sort of low-level stuff can't be allowed to jam up the court system. However if the cops don't allow the person to have his wounds attended to and an infection or worse results then that should remove their immunity.
That said, those times where the cops have the person secured and they're still beating on him or using a taser must not qualify for immunity.
Also warrant-less searches, entering private property without exigent circumstances or an invitation, shooting a non-vicious dog, lying in a report, or any of the other routine, some petty and some major, ways cops screw people over should remove immunity.
So dial immunity way back but don't eliminate it completely.
-
There has to be some immunity.
People do occasionally get knocked around during arrests picking up scrapes and bruises in the process and that sort of low-level stuff can't be allowed to jam up the court system. However if the cops don't allow the person to have his wounds attended to and an infection or worse results then that should remove their immunity.
That said, those times where the cops have the person secured and they're still beating on him or using a taser must not qualify for immunity.
Also warrant-less searches, entering private property without exigent circumstances or an invitation, shooting a non-vicious dog, lying in a report, or any of the other routine, some petty and some major, ways cops screw people over should remove immunity.
So dial immunity way back but don't eliminate it completely.
I agree with Warren...there has to be some type of immunity for the piddly little stuff, but for all the rest it needs to go.
-
When I was a prosecutor, I had six lawsuits filed against me by people I prosecuted or their families. These ranges from wrongful death (a woman I prosecuted for a string of burglaries was sentenced to 20 years. She hung herself after 20 days). The mother sued, seeking 1.9 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages. Theory was if I hadn't prosecuted her, she would be alive. Suit was tossed because of sovereign immunity. Another time, I was sued by a guy I prosecuted...burglary again...for depriving him of his civil rights to liberty. Again, sovereign immunity. If they co.pletely eliminate the immunity, people who work in the system will become more of a target of these suits, and will be forced to defend against them on the merits. Which means lawyer fees. A lot of good people will leave the work to avoid that type of vicious litigation.
I agree that it shouldn't be a complete ban, but there should be protections still available.
-
When I was a prosecutor, I had six lawsuits filed against me by people I prosecuted or their families. These ranges from wrongful death (a woman I prosecuted for a string of burglaries was sentenced to 20 years. She hung herself after 20 days). The mother sued, seeking 1.9 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages. Theory was if I hadn't prosecuted her, she would be alive. Suit was tossed because of sovereign immunity. Another time, I was sued by a guy I prosecuted...burglary again...for depriving him of his civil rights to liberty. Again, sovereign immunity. If they co.pletely eliminate the immunity, people who work in the system will become more of a target of these suits, and will be forced to defend against them on the merits. Which means lawyer fees. A lot of good people will leave the work to avoid that type of vicious litigation.
I agree that it shouldn't be a complete ban, but there should be protections still available.
I would think that such things wouldn't be allowed to begin with. "I broke the law and you put me in jail so I'm going to sue you for putting me in jail." ???
-
I often wonder why judges, when looking a certain types of cases that are to appear before them, don't say "This is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Get out of my courtroom before I throw you in jail for contempt of court."
-
I often wonder why judges, when looking a certain types of cases that are to appear before them, don't say "This is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Get out of my courtroom before I throw you in jail for contempt of court."
Need to bring in a few crusty old retired judges to review pending cases a few hours a week. Give 'em a great big BULLSHIT rubber stamp with red ink. If it gets passed two judges it can go to trial.
-
There has to be some immunity.
Why?
I read what you wrote, but I wasn't convinced. Not even close.
-
When I was a prosecutor, I had six lawsuits filed against me by people I prosecuted or their families. These ranges from wrongful death (a woman I prosecuted for a string of burglaries was sentenced to 20 years. She hung herself after 20 days). The mother sued, seeking 1.9 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages. Theory was if I hadn't prosecuted her, she would be alive. Suit was tossed because of sovereign immunity. Another time, I was sued by a guy I prosecuted...burglary again...for depriving him of his civil rights to liberty. Again, sovereign immunity. If they co.pletely eliminate the immunity, people who work in the system will become more of a target of these suits, and will be forced to defend against them on the merits. Which means lawyer fees. A lot of good people will leave the work to avoid that type of vicious litigation.
I agree that it shouldn't be a complete ban, but there should be protections still available.
You're talking about sovereign immunity, the question is about qualified immunity.