4 ms·

Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities. Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors. There's a bill to

Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities. Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors. There's a bill to end qualified immunity currently. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes. Otherwise, it’s their employer’s liability. So yes, some immunity is necessary. The problem is the current standards of police immunity don’t seem to make sense. (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.) > Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing would change except some insurance brokers would make money. Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would you expect to impartially adjudicate their disputes?
- PopAlongKid 3y ago
  >This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pc86 3y ago
    Which is egregious. Which means they shouldn't have any immunity. Which appears to have been exactly what was decided in this case. I agree with you that seems to have been handled exactly as it should have been. It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
    - nwiswell 3y ago
      What about ending the presumption of immunity? It was an uphill battle in this case to strip the judge's immunity. Almost certainly this judge abused individuals who did not have the resources to defend their rights. Perhaps the burden of proof should not be so onerous. Maybe the solution is that the employer (in this case the WV judiciary) has the option to accept liability. If they do so, immunity is presumed. If the employer rejects the liability, then the individual must prove that they are entitled to immunity. Obviously there's a financial incentive for an employer to deny liability, but doing so would be extremely unpopular with employees. So presumably they would be judicious depending on the circumstances.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Why would that be any better then the current system already in place, after factoring in all upsides and downsides?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power. They also weren't within the coverage of judicial immunity, so that's irrelevant.
- michael1999 3y ago
  Indemnification against civil liability is very different from immunity from criminal prosecution. Any employer can provide liability insurance, but only the Supreme Count can grant carte-blanche to commit crimes.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Indemnification against civil liability is very different from immunity from criminal prosecution Neither qualified nor judicial immunity provide for immunity from criminal prosecution.
    - michael1999 3y ago
      The last 40 years of judge-invented prosecutorial immunity paint a different picture.
    - michael1999 3y ago
      I'll reply more carefully since this is just so evil. The current interpretation of prosecutorial immunity allows: - initiating prosecution entirely for political or racial reasons - falsifying evidence - coercing false testimony - hiding evidence Technically, they can face the bar, or even criminal prosecution. But professional courtesy keeps them safe from criminal prosecution unless ugly facts are made public. Since the invention of immunity in 1978, those ugly facts are rarely discovered. These two forces combine to yield effective criminal immunity.
  - thorncorona 3y ago
    Isn't the president the only one who can technically do that through pardon? Supreme court can only rule they are legal under current laws.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Isn't the president the only one who can technically do that through pardon? No, so can individual prosecutors and Congress, through immunity grants.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. This is like saying a dentist shouldn't be personally liable for the "mistake" of raping somebody under his care. Of course he should be!
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > like saying a dentist shouldn't be personally liable for the "mistake" of raping somebody The only way you can read what was written this way is if you don’t consider rape egregious.
    - konstantinua00 3y ago
      as a non-native speaker, may I ask what egregious even mean? intentional?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > may I ask what egregious even mean? intentional? Outrageously bad. Even if unintentional, it's behaviour that obviously isn't acceptable or part of the job. Like this lady.
      - samus 3y ago
        Intentional is the crucial shade of meaning here. Excessive in a way that attracts (or at least should attract) attention. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egregious https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egregious
      - hughdbrown 3y ago
        From Latin grex/gregoris (flock) and ex- (out of). egregious comes from a root which means "stands out from the flock" -- it's exceptional. Centuries ago, it had a positive meaning but not it is reserved for describing outstandingly bad events or people, etc.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      You think what this judge did wasn't egregious? She invaded this man's home with armed men and robbed him; I'm comparing felonies to felonies. It sure as hell wasn't a mistake, so why are you talking about mistakes? "Oops I tripped and accidentally fell onto his property and through his door." "Oops my tongue stumbled and I accidentally threatened to have the man arrested if he tried to film what I was doing." Yeah right. She knew she was breaking the law, that's why she freaked out about being filmed. None of this was a mistake.
Reptur 3y ago
Of course, people with no consequences will do horrible things. Looks like its dead in the water though, it was introduced on 03/01/2021 and then nothing. Congress understands without cops that are immune, they cannot do terrible things with impunity. Immune cops are the foundation of an authoritarian government.
williamcotton 3y ago
Judicial immunity is a very different kind of privilege. Chesterton’s thousand mile long fence!
- 77pt77 3y ago
  It seems like that fence always runs in the same direction...
77pt77 3y ago
You forgot about prosecutorial immunity.
__derek__ 3y ago
FYI: that bill is from the previous Congress, but it's been reintroduced in the current one[1] and in the Senate.[2] But Republicans control the House, so it's not going anywhere. Meanwhile, it looks like a Republican introduced an opposing bill to codify qualified immunity for police.[3] [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2847 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2847 [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1196 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/119... [3]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/233 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/233

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Judges and police shouldn't have legal immunities This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. Under egregious circumstances, yes. Otherwise, it’s their employer’s liability. So yes, some immunity is necessary. The problem is the current standards of police immunity don’t seem to make sense. (I see no issue with present standards of judicial immunity.) > Professionals doing jobs over $10k should have to buy malpractice insurance like doctors One, this would obviously be paid for by taxpayers. Nothing would change except some insurance brokers would make money. Two, you want a private company gating the courts? Who would you expect to impartially adjudicate their disputes?

PopAlongKid 3y ago
>This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. No, it isn't--poor choice of a strawman. This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pc86 3y ago
  Which is egregious. Which means they shouldn't have any immunity. Which appears to have been exactly what was decided in this case. I agree with you that seems to have been handled exactly as it should have been. It's a leap to go from that to "end all immunity in all circumstances."
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    What about ending the presumption of immunity? It was an uphill battle in this case to strip the judge's immunity. Almost certainly this judge abused individuals who did not have the resources to defend their rights. Perhaps the burden of proof should not be so onerous. Maybe the solution is that the employer (in this case the WV judiciary) has the option to accept liability. If they do so, immunity is presumed. If the employer rejects the liability, then the individual must prove that they are entitled to immunity. Obviously there's a financial incentive for an employer to deny liability, but doing so would be extremely unpopular with employees. So presumably they would be judicious depending on the circumstances.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Why would that be any better then the current system already in place, after factoring in all upsides and downsides?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > This judge's actions were not a "mistake", they were a deliberate abuse of power. They also weren't within the coverage of judicial immunity, so that's irrelevant.
michael1999 3y ago
Indemnification against civil liability is very different from immunity from criminal prosecution. Any employer can provide liability insurance, but only the Supreme Count can grant carte-blanche to commit crimes.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Indemnification against civil liability is very different from immunity from criminal prosecution Neither qualified nor judicial immunity provide for immunity from criminal prosecution.
  - michael1999 3y ago
    The last 40 years of judge-invented prosecutorial immunity paint a different picture.
  - michael1999 3y ago
    I'll reply more carefully since this is just so evil. The current interpretation of prosecutorial immunity allows: - initiating prosecution entirely for political or racial reasons - falsifying evidence - coercing false testimony - hiding evidence Technically, they can face the bar, or even criminal prosecution. But professional courtesy keeps them safe from criminal prosecution unless ugly facts are made public. Since the invention of immunity in 1978, those ugly facts are rarely discovered. These two forces combine to yield effective criminal immunity.
- thorncorona 3y ago
  Isn't the president the only one who can technically do that through pardon? Supreme court can only rule they are legal under current laws.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Isn't the president the only one who can technically do that through pardon? No, so can individual prosecutors and Congress, through immunity grants.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> This is like saying employees should be personally liable for mistakes they make at work. This is like saying a dentist shouldn't be personally liable for the "mistake" of raping somebody under his care. Of course he should be!
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > like saying a dentist shouldn't be personally liable for the "mistake" of raping somebody The only way you can read what was written this way is if you don’t consider rape egregious.
  - konstantinua00 3y ago
    as a non-native speaker, may I ask what egregious even mean? intentional?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > may I ask what egregious even mean? intentional? Outrageously bad. Even if unintentional, it's behaviour that obviously isn't acceptable or part of the job. Like this lady.
    - samus 3y ago
      Intentional is the crucial shade of meaning here. Excessive in a way that attracts (or at least should attract) attention. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egregious https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egregious
    - hughdbrown 3y ago
      From Latin grex/gregoris (flock) and ex- (out of). egregious comes from a root which means "stands out from the flock" -- it's exceptional. Centuries ago, it had a positive meaning but not it is reserved for describing outstandingly bad events or people, etc.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    You think what this judge did wasn't egregious? She invaded this man's home with armed men and robbed him; I'm comparing felonies to felonies. It sure as hell wasn't a mistake, so why are you talking about mistakes? "Oops I tripped and accidentally fell onto his property and through his door." "Oops my tongue stumbled and I accidentally threatened to have the man arrested if he tried to film what I was doing." Yeah right. She knew she was breaking the law, that's why she freaked out about being filmed. None of this was a mistake.

Reptur 3y ago

Of course, people with no consequences will do horrible things. Looks like its dead in the water though, it was introduced on 03/01/2021 and then nothing. Congress understands without cops that are immune, they cannot do terrible things with impunity. Immune cops are the foundation of an authoritarian government.

williamcotton 3y ago

Judicial immunity is a very different kind of privilege. Chesterton’s thousand mile long fence!

77pt77 3y ago
It seems like that fence always runs in the same direction...

77pt77 3y ago

You forgot about prosecutorial immunity.

__derek__ 3y ago

FYI: that bill is from the previous Congress, but it's been reintroduced in the current one[1] and in the Senate.[2] But Republicans control the House, so it's not going anywhere. Meanwhile, it looks like a Republican introduced an opposing bill to codify qualified immunity for police.[3] [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2847 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2847 [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1196 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/119... [3]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/233 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/233