Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 335 posts

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#161

Post by jeltz »

chmod775 wrote: post #140
mike_d wrote: post #40

The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. It applies to all parts of government. Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave yo…

Excuse me but how are "officials" special here? By that logic any job should have these protections. They don't for obvious reasons. If people need protection from certain laws, then write that in the specific laws.

In Sweden all employees have these protections and I feel our system works mostly fine. The employer is by default on the hook for all damages caused by employees. There are of course some exceptions like gross negligence, but in general all employees have qualified immunity here.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#162

Post by austincheney »

dragonwriter wrote: post #106
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see no issue with that, seriously? Qualified immunity isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is released, for example, when a government official breaks clearly established law. (Counterfactual: the courts have been very narrow in interpreting what "clearly established" means.)

> Qualified immunity isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. No, its a get-out-of-civil-liability-free card. > It is released, for example, when a government official breaks clearly established law. No, its not. As well as meeting the extremely narrow standard established for violating “clearly established law” and act must also fail to meet the extremely broad standard established for being an “objectively reasonable act…

> No, its not.

There is no qualified immunity protection upon the conviction of a criminal act regardless of how narrow or broad underlying factors are.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#163

Post by jeltz »

bloak wrote: post #135
mike_d wrote: post #40

The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. It applies to all parts of government. Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave yo…

Other countries don't have a problem with officials getting sued. In the UK there doesn't even seem to be a problem with employees getting sued; cases always seem to end up being against the employer. So why does only the US need "qualified immunity"? (That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.)

Sweden basically has qualified immunity for all employees (our law is a bit different but offers almost as strong protections). So, no, I do not think the US is the only country which needs qualified immunity.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#164

Post by jeltz »

sneak wrote: post #134
tomc1985 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are you sure? If someone is acting as an agent of an entity then the entity is who you sue I am definitely not a lawyer or even good at "law" but that would just be insane if the truth is otherwise

The problem is that then when a police officer breaks the law and harms you, and you later sue them, the taxpayers end up paying the settlement due to the fact that you have to sue the whole department rather than the criminal themselves. There are no consequences, criminal or civil, for the person who actually broke the law. New York City taxpayers pay $300M a year or so (IIRC) paying out civil judgements against th…

How is that a problem? It was after all the tax payers who voted for politicians who are in favor of violent policing.

I feel the issue here is that the courts are corrupt and do not convict police for their crimes. Not that you cannot sue employees. I feel fixing a broken criminal justice system with civil lawsuits only creates more issues than it solves.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#165

Post by petertodd »

austincheney wrote: post #151
DocTomoe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of creating yet another special case for government officials, the solution for the US problem is to go and take some ideas from Europe. In Germany, all costs associated with a lawsuit have to be paid/reimbursed by the losing party. This quickly solves the "I know I won't win, but lets ruin the other guy" problem.

That is already how it works in US civil litigation.

No it's not. Both because courts don't always give you costs, and because even when they do award costs, actually collecting is tough, and finally, because courts don't always award the full amount of your costs.

Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-l...

"To further this goal, the losing side doesn’t usually pay the winning side's attorney's fees. In the United States, the rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorneys' fees, regardless of whether they win or lose."

US courts can award costs, and they do in many circumstances. But it is not automatic by any means. Even in countries where costs are awarded automatically, actually collecting on those costs is difficult - I personally know people who have successfully defended themselves and are in exactly this situation in the EU.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#166

Post by astura »

brnt wrote: post #139
twhb wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please try to stay civil. In response to your assertion that the courts don’t work: > If the laws that protect us aren’t good enough, then the solution is better laws, not to exempt some classes from the law!

I was not aware I was uncivil, certainly didn't mean to. Your comment does not address the basic problem with a legislative implementation of freedom: it is undemocratic because the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money, therefore giving more weight to those that have more. That makes the legislative or libertarian version of freedom undemocratic. If that interests you, basically any critiq…

>I was not aware I was uncivil, certainly didn't mean to.

You were not being uncivil.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#167

Post by zrail »

austincheney wrote: post #162
dragonwriter wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Qualified immunity isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. No, its a get-out-of-civil-liability-free card. > It is released, for example, when a government official breaks clearly established law. No, its not. As well as meeting the extremely narrow standard established for violating “clearly established law” and act must also fail to meet the extremely broad standard established for being an “objectively reasonable act…

> No, its not. There is no qualified immunity protection upon the conviction of a criminal act regardless of how narrow or broad underlying factors are.

You have to be convicted first. Police don't even get indicted.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#168

Post by michaelt »

DocTomoe wrote: post #131
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. This is a general problem with the US court system. People with more resources can use it to destroy people with fewer resources, because litigation is expensive and time consuming even if you ultimately prevail. This isn't a problem for the rich because they c…

Instead of creating yet another special case for government officials, the solution for the US problem is to go and take some ideas from Europe. In Germany, all costs associated with a lawsuit have to be paid/reimbursed by the losing party. This quickly solves the "I know I won't win, but lets ruin the other guy" problem.

Well, the German legal system is actually different in a bunch of ways:

1. They don't use precedent, judges rule based on legislation alone.

2. Germany criminal and administrative law uses an "inquisitorial" system where the judges perform fact-finding and question witnesses (in contrast to the "adversarial" system used in common law countries)

3. German lawyers have their fees set by the "RVG" (Act on the Remuneration of Lawyers) and even if the winner chose fancy lawyers that charge more than set by the RVG, the loser only pays the amount set by the RVG.

4. Contingency fees were completely banned until recently, and are very rarely used today.

5. There are no punitive damages awarded under the German legal system - only compensatory damages.

Between these factors, German trials cost a lot less - so legal fees don't ruin you financially even if you lose.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#169

Post by refurb »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #39
refurb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a fun “karmic justice” ideas but it will just end up like the “3 strikes law” where some person gets life in prison for a relatively minor error.

If you make an error that ends up with someone else spending life in prison, it's not a minor error.

What if youre the prosecutor and you’re given false evidence by a cop who was given it by an informant?

The prosecutor and the cop didn’t know it was fake but also didn’t ask too many questions either.

Life in prison for both of them?

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#170

Post by throwaway0a5e »

bloak wrote: post #135
mike_d wrote: post #40

The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. It applies to all parts of government. Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave yo…

Other countries don't have a problem with officials getting sued. In the UK there doesn't even seem to be a problem with employees getting sued; cases always seem to end up being against the employer. So why does only the US need "qualified immunity"? (That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.)

You always sue the people with money. In the US the employer is always the one sued by default. Individuals only really get sued when the individual's actions are so squarely of their own doing that the employer can't possibly be held responsible.

If a truck driver enraged about his wife's infidelity decides to drive his truck through the motel his wife is cheating in you don't sue the trucking company (well you probably do, but they lawyer up and their lawyers spell out why it's not worth your time), you sue the driver.

The problem is that this pattern of action falls apart for agents the government because of qualified immunity. If a cop does something bad and the government says "hey, it ain't on us, we told him not to do that, heck, we even trained him to avoid getting into those situations" the plaintiff is out of luck (except for the existing narrow exception to qualified immunity). Getting rid of qualified immunity would put government employees in the same situation literally every other employee is in.

Post reply on HN