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.