Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.

The issue isn't qualified immunity itself, but rather the maximalist interpretation that seems pervasive in the US justice system, and the overwhelmingly broad definition of "honest mistake" that seemingly applies to the police, and the police alone.

▲ jazzypants 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think you would find that they would make far fewer illegal mistakes if they actually had to deal with the consequences of those mistakes.

Qualified Immunity didn't exist as a concept until the 1960s, and it was put in place to shield policemen enacting racist policies and corrupt cronies of Nixon.

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

▲

hk1337 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think we would see far fewer actions at all for fear of being sued.

▲

jazzypants 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They could just buy insurance. You know, like doctors, lawyers, and a wide variety of other professionals that deal with liabilities in their field.

Regardless, the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.

▲

drbscl an hour ago | parent [-]

> They could just buy insurance. > the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.

I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin.

	▲	switchbak 14 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Change the incentives, you change the behaviour. Granted, this might have lots of unintended consequences, many of them bad.
	▲	vajrabum 23 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Make the police officer like the Doctor pay for their own insurance.
	▲	infinite_spin 32 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Malpractice insurance might increase the cost of policing, but I'd wager the malpractice itself is costing tax payers even more.

▲

array_key_first 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As it currently stands the police already do almost nothing. Any kind of push back or critique of the police leads to inaction by the union. Meaning, police twiddle their thumbs and take your tax money because they can. It's a very effective technique from them to get what they want, because ultimately we need them and we can't actually force them to work.

▲

voidfunc 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Good. The police do too much as it is.

Every interaction with the police is a dice roll to see if someone lives or dies.

	▲	switchbak 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Hey I have plenty of reasons to distrust the police - more than most, but this statement is a bit over the top.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲ wvenable an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Doctors and nurses will make mistakes in performing medicine. Making those doctors and nurses personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive."

How many other jobs can we apply this to?

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-]

And does it apply to, say, my tax returns?

	▲	Terr_ 13 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		AFAIK the IRS has historically been more, er, disinterestedly nitpicky as opposed to disproportionately vindictive. More "you say X we say Y here's your options you are Z days over with a W% rate", rather than "Ah hah! $50 dollars error, time to make an example outta this poor bastard."
	▲	jshier 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Generally, yes. If you make a mistake in your return, the IRS is perfectly happy to accept an amended return, and you pay (or get paid) the difference (perhaps with a penalty fee). They usually only go after you criminally if they think you committed fraud.

▲ isityettime an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.

Or maybe police training should be longer than a coding bootcamp... in some countries, police work is an undergraduate major and the programs are quite competitive. Similarly, there are countries without qualified immunity as a policy, and it doesn't seem to fundamentally undermine policework there.

▲ mpalmer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

    Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.

Your own usage of "honest mistake" is overwhelmingly broad, so it's not at all clear what alternative definition of qualified immunity you are advocating.