3 ms·

Sovereign immunity is a mixed bag. It protects police, judges, prosecutors, etc from having frivolous or retaliatory lawsuits filed against them by persons with

by mveety 10y ago

Sovereign immunity is a mixed bag. It protects police, judges, prosecutors, etc from having frivolous or retaliatory lawsuits filed against them by persons with a grudge. On the other hand though, it lessens accountability because someone who has been genuinely wronged by a malicious police officer, judge, prosecutor, etc has no real means to hold the individual accountable for their actions. Sure the departments can be sued, but that does little damage, harms innocents, and doesn't not bring the person accountable to justice. My gut tells me there is some acceptable middle ground here, but I have no idea what it is and I'm not sure anyone really does. I do think, if I only had the two options, that having immunity, while far from perfect, is a better option than the opposite because it protects innocents, which is more important than punishing criminals.

hrehhf 10y ago
Sovereign immunity does not protect innocents. When officials have immunity, they target vulnerable people for prosecution and imprisonment, even if those targeted are innocents. In general, police and prosecutors do not care whether a person is actually innocent, they care only if they can convince a judge/jury to imprison the person. This is the opposite of protection innocents. Over time, "successful" police/prosecutors are the ones who imprison the most people, pushing out those who actually try not to imprison innocent people. On the other hand, if officials did not have immunity and were held accountable for abusing the law, the incentives would be properly aligned. The problem of 'frivolous' or 'retaliatory' lawsuits is a red herring. Sometimes the plaintiff might not have enough evidence to succeed in court but that is not frivolous, its simply insufficient. This is mainly an excuse people used to justify mass incarceration, probably to protect their conscience from making them feel guilty about what is actually done by their government. Perhaps, to appease those of your persuasion, there could be a government fund used to defend a lawsuit for the first $X to dis-incentivize retaliatory lawsuits.

by mveety 10y ago

hrehhf 10y ago

Sovereign immunity does not protect innocents. When officials have immunity, they target vulnerable people for prosecution and imprisonment, even if those targeted are innocents. In general, police and prosecutors do not care whether a person is actually innocent, they care only if they can convince a judge/jury to imprison the person. This is the opposite of protection innocents. Over time, "successful" police/prosecutors are the ones who imprison the most people, pushing out those who actually try not to imprison innocent people. On the other hand, if officials did not have immunity and were held accountable for abusing the law, the incentives would be properly aligned. The problem of 'frivolous' or 'retaliatory' lawsuits is a red herring. Sometimes the plaintiff might not have enough evidence to succeed in court but that is not frivolous, its simply insufficient. This is mainly an excuse people used to justify mass incarceration, probably to protect their conscience from making them feel guilty about what is actually done by their government. Perhaps, to appease those of your persuasion, there could be a government fund used to defend a lawsuit for the first $X to dis-incentivize retaliatory lawsuits.