Sovereign immunity does not protect innocents. When officials have immunity, they target vulnerable people for prosecution and imprisonment, even if those targe

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.