2 ms·
"Fired" ?! I think you mean thrown in prison for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Being unconstitutional thus illegal, these actions could
by mindslight 3y ago
"Fired" ?! I think you mean thrown in prison for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Being unconstitutional thus illegal, these actions could not have been carried out under governmental authority. Thus these actions should be prosecuted as anyone else's would be.
I'm not necessarily a fan of creating such high stakes setups. But until these institutions are reformed around the concept of equity such that their victims are routinely and predictably reimbursed for the harms perpetrated by the institutions, we should fall back to insisting on criminal punishment for the individuals who enable them.
- SllX 3y agoYeah, but wait till you hear about qualified immunity.
- mindslight 3y agoI've certainly heard of it and it's one part of the cancer creating this state of societal breakdown. The concept needs to be soundly rejected. Any immunity shield should be narrowly scoped based on following written procedures. Acting within those procedures should mean that liability falls only on the institution. Acting outside those procedures should mean the institution and the agent are jointly/severally liable. One of the foundations of our society is that nobody is above the law, and government agencies need to stop being given this cheat code where they harm innocent victims and then just walk away from the situation unless it is especially egregious.
- SllX 3y agoYou’re preaching to the choir but the issue is that a lot of people “reject” it, and it is still an active part of American jurisprudence.
- mindslight 3y agoSure, the comment I was responding to ("fired") wasn't grounded in how things actually are either. The point is if we're talking about what ought to be, then let's aim for actual reform and actual justice rather than some token firings.