Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> 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?

View on HN

>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.

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."

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.

Why would that be any better then the current system already in place, after factoring in all upsides and downsides?

> 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.

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.

> Indemnification against civil liability is very different from immunity from criminal prosecution

Neither qualified nor judicial immunity provide for immunity from criminal prosecution.

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.

The last 40 years of judge-invented prosecutorial immunity paint a different picture.

> Indemnification against civil liability is very different from immunity from criminal prosecution.

Qualified, judicial, and absolute immunities are (among others) immunities from civil, not criminal, liability that apply to public officials in different conditions.

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.

> Isn't the president the only one who can technically do that through pardon?

No, so can individual prosecutors and Congress, through immunity grants.

> 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!

> 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.

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.

Again, I’m not sure how you’re misreading this thread to suggest anyone disagrees with this outcome.

as a non-native speaker, may I ask what egregious even mean? intentional?

> 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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com