Qualified Immunity

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Siskie, Apr 12, 2021.

  1. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    So New Mexico has got rid of qualified immunity and I assume other states will consider it; and possibly the current Congress.

    How many cops will quit and how low will recruitment be when they realize they will go bankrupt personally for getting trigger happy?
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  2. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,342
    Likes Received:
    10,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you are outrageously speeding or outrageously drunk did you realise that your auto insurance may not pay up should you have an accident?

    Behaviour matters, insurance or not.
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm all for ending QI. It is legal sophistry created by SCOTUS

    Good for NM for having done it.

    I'm also for ending the training of police by military, and the military equipment transfer policy.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2021
  4. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Qualified Immunity initially began to shield prosecutors from frivolous law-suits, like he got 37 baked beans for lunch and I only got 35, or I have to use Dial soap instead of Irish Spring.

    Originally, it wasn't a law, rather it was a very long series of court decisions at the State and federal level over a period of time that continually shielded prosecutors from everything, including bad conduct, and it was extended to police.

    States can and should write laws that explicitly define Qualified Immunity and limit it to prosecutors only with respect to frivolous law suits, like he gets a #2 pencil with an eraser and my pencil doesn't have an eraser.

    And, yes, those examples are real actual lawsuits filed against prosecutors by inmates at county jails and State prisons, and your tax dollars are wasted defending them.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This article from REASON magazine gives the story about how QI came into existence. We can thank Earl Warren for it.

    Abolish Qualified Immunity – Reason.com
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In an ideal world, it would not be an issue and a lawsuit could only be pursued against them in cases where they actually deserved it.

    However, it is not an ideal world and the courts are highly dysfunctional in area of lawsuits, and public perceptions are way off and unrealistic about how exactly law enforcement should be held to account when mistakes are made.

    The way I see it, this really goes to a much deeper issue of public beliefs about lawsuits and responsibility. In an ideal world, many of these lawsuits would not be allowed to proceed, or the payouts would be much smaller and more reasonable.

    I have a lot more to say about this topic, but what I have to say would not specifically be about law enforcement but rather the very troublesome state of lawsuits in general in the US.

    I don't like the idea of government creating a problem through dysfunctional laws and systems, and then knowing all too well how dysfunctional it is, wanting to create a special law to completely shield themselves from it.


    We do have to be realistic though and consider what sort of unintended effects lawsuits are ultimately going to have on certain occupations where it is not unusual, almost natural, that mistakes are going to be made by normal people. Not only considering the person who would get the money, but also where that money is coming from and the circumstances of the one who is seen as being at fault. We have to realize that human beings cannot act perfectly all the time, and it may be unfair to always hold them responsible (or hold them fully responsible).
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2021
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think that's a fair analogy. What's being described here is more like a case of someone who drives long distances everyday for their job, and one day gets into an accident because they didn't get enough sleep the night before.

    This is getting very off-topic, but it reminds me of a story here:
    Automatically blaming car accident deaths on persons because of alcohol/drugs

    In that story the man was blamed even though it may have mostly not been his fault.

    A mistake can be a little one from the standpoint of the person who commits it, and yet be a big one from the standpoint of the person who suffers from it.
    In these cases, I believe it is not always fair to hold the person who committed it fully responsible for it.

    additional thoughts: an argument in defense of Chauvin
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2021
    Melb_muser likes this.
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If an individual officer can be held fully responsible for the negative effects of making an honest mistake, or an accidental mistake that was very easy to make, then wouldn't it only be fair to see the criminal who suffered as partly responsible too? Since that mistake made by the officer could not have occurred if it had not been for the context of the crime.

    Some of this to me looks like playing the "blame game", when there is a negative outcome trying to find the one who is "responsible", even though that person did not go far out of their way to intentionally do something that they knew would or could result in that negative outcome.

    I don't even think there is a good English language terminology for this.

    We would have to more precisely define exactly what "being at fault" means, and not just see it as a black & white thing, but see it as being on a spectrum.
    In the law there is a concept known as mens rea, which means intent, and sometimes the connection between the actual intent of the person who made the mistake and the bad thing that happened is not so direct or clear.

    It is very easy to make a sudden mistake or miscalculation in the heat of the moment, when there is very little time to think.

    That is not really the same thing as an intentional act, in my view.

    It's going to get problematic if we think individuals in these situations should be held responsible, and by that I mean fully responsible, in the same way as if it had been an intentional act.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2021

Share This Page