|
|
|
|
|
|
by Slartibreakfast
4142 days ago
|
|
|
The whole notion of absolute immunity for government agents, whether it's the mailman or a prosecutor is completely nuts - it seems ridiculous to me that our legal system includes government agents who are allowed to operate outside of the constraints of the same laws that govern the rest of us. I don't have a problem with a cop or prosecutor being immune to a lawsuit as long as he was acting within the bounds of the law, but I do have a problem with that immunity being considered an inalienable right as opposed to a privilege - I would prefer to see immunity granted by a grand jury in the same way that indictments are. I know you'd have to put some work in to figure out how to do it, but there has to be a solution of some kind - blanket immunity for government agents is not something that a free society should tolerate. |
|
|
There is no need for immunity when one acts within the bounds of the law. All that protects against is the hassle and cost of frivolous lawsuits. Absolute immunity prevents having to have another lawsuit to determine if the conduct in the first one was appropriate, and so on.
But you are right that absolute immunity of any kind is nuts. It's the mark of a tyrannical regime, and claims of self-policing do not in any way diminish this.
However, the real problem is that gag orders can be enforced after the trial is over. Why would any form of democracy want to lock up crucial information about how its laws are being interpreted from the public? What is the point of even having laws if the public is not made aware of how they are being interpreted in court?