2 ms·
Even those who support qualified immunity should find it difficult to support continued qualified immunity for those repeatedly breaking laws. I don’t understan
by CogitoCogito 5y ago
Even those who support qualified immunity should find it difficult to support continued qualified immunity for those repeatedly breaking laws. I don’t understand how the individuals of the article can repeatedly break the law yet still not be held personally responsible.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Even those who support qualified immunity should find it difficult to support continued qualified immunity for those repeatedly breaking laws. If the logic of QI (the “qualified" refers to the legal clarity of the violation) applies at all, it applies to every offense that meets the qualification. There is no coherent argument otherwise.
- lozenge 5y ago> qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". After so many reports, investigations, and hiding their own statistics because they were embarrassing, it's clear they "reasonably should have known" about the childrens' rights. Qualified immunity shouldn't help them here.
- CogitoCogito 5y agoSo then you’re saying that they aren’t covered by qualified immunity here? They appear to be repeatedly breaking the same laws after all.