For consequences, we need to do away with the notion of qualified immunity. Why should police officers, politicians, agents of the government have any immunity for their actions? They should carry personal liability for breaking the law and violating others’ rights. Otherwise, there is no reason they’ll change. Right now, at best you’ll sue the government and get some money, but all you’re doing is punishing other tax payers.

▲

hedora 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Committing a crime and also abusing your authority to aid in the crime should be greater than the penalty for just committing that crime.

Qualified immunity is the only legal doctrine I can think of where piling on extra crimes reduces your liability.

▲

themaninthedark 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle of federal law that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".

Under 42 USC § 1983, a plaintiff can sue for damages when state officials violate their constitutional rights or other federal rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

Qualified Immunity only sets the bar or threshold that you have to meet in order to sue.

▲

myko 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nearly impossibly hard to receive justice against government officials due to this standard

▲

Roark66 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is interesting. In my country (Poland) parliament members have legal, immunity from criminal prosecution and arrest to the point of police not being able to stop them if they drunk drive. There have been some abuses like that.

The law is such that a prosecutor that wants to prosecute them has to ask the parliament. Then there is a vote and the parliament decides if the immunity is taken off.

In a healthy democracy, where there are more than same two parties switching the rule to one or the other it is very likely the current opposition will be the majority next time and they will vote to strip immunity from those that try to use it as a shield for criminals.

I think the price we pay for this (delay in getting justice) is well worth paying so the justice system can't be used as a weapon against political opponents easily.

▲

_heimdall 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The rules and laws allowing the federal government to take over a state case against a federal agent seem much more damaging.

The cops involved in the most recent Minneapolis shooting will almost certainly face no repercussions because of this. The state can bring a case but the feds are clearly uninterested, they would simply take the case into federal court and spike it.

▲

cataphract 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not how it works. When a state prosecution of a federal officer is removed to federal court, it's still the state prosecutor who's in charge. The problem is that as long as they were performing their duties they get a lot of leeway. A recent case was a cyclist killed by a DEA agent that ran a stop sign. Case dismissed: federal agents tailing someone don't have to respect state traffic laws.

▲

themaninthedark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The state can't bring charges against a federal agent enforcing federal law, otherwise southern states could have sued the federal agents enforcing integration.

https://youtu.be/LuRFcYAO8lI?si=3n5XRqABhotw8Qrw

	▲	_heimdall 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's incorrect. States can bring charges, they will almost certainly be thrown out or moved to federal court outside of the state's control.

▲

SilverElfin 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But for federal officials, individuals don’t have standing right?

	▲	themaninthedark 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's more like when the federal government passed a law giving people a recourse for when state officials violate their rights they did not write the law to (or purposefully wrote it to not) include the federal government.

▲

sam345 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This reflects an anarchist viewpoint or a trial lawyer's dream. Good luck having a government where everyone participating can be sued individually.

	▲	bdauvergne 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's the norm in most western countries. Prosecution of administration official is still rare, but nothing like the obvious free permit to misbehave we see in the US.

▲

dumdedumdumdum 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Get rid of qualified immunity and enjoy no more fruit of the poisonous tree. I assume you are not familiar with the laws of evidence by your emotional position. One of the biggest problems the country faces is citizen literacy in all domains. If you improve citizen literacy across all domains you will solve all problems, until they take away our ability to vote. The "system" exploits those who cannot defend themselves.