I've been thinking that immunity from the law is at the heart of a number of problems. I'm of course questioning government immunity, but also corporate immunity.
The UN should just be abolished, or at least drastically reduced. There should be no immunity anywhere for participating in terrorist acts like Oct 7, or 9/11, or anything like that.
States grant themselves and their agents lots of immunity, in part to protect them from lawsuits attempting to criminalize their proper exercise of discretion, but also because they don't feel like paying to set up a justice system just to see it used against themselves. Any immunity should have exceptions, however, for actions clearly outside any official's legitimate discretion. That should include, for instance, accepting bribes, and certainly participating in or abetting the wanton torture, rape, and murder of civilians they happen to have a grudge against.
Yes, but they pay for it with taxpayer money, so shouldn't the taxpayers be the ones who get immunity?
More seriously, yeah, I understand why it's there, and I can agree with a form of qualified immunity. But over the decades I've read far too many abuses of immunity by government officials & employees. I think it needs to be more limited, and maybe much more limited.
I've been thinking that immunity from the law is at the heart of a number of problems. I'm of course questioning government immunity, but also corporate immunity.
ReplyDeleteThe UN should just be abolished, or at least drastically reduced. There should be no immunity anywhere for participating in terrorist acts like Oct 7, or 9/11, or anything like that.
States grant themselves and their agents lots of immunity, in part to protect them from lawsuits attempting to criminalize their proper exercise of discretion, but also because they don't feel like paying to set up a justice system just to see it used against themselves. Any immunity should have exceptions, however, for actions clearly outside any official's legitimate discretion. That should include, for instance, accepting bribes, and certainly participating in or abetting the wanton torture, rape, and murder of civilians they happen to have a grudge against.
ReplyDeleteYes, but they pay for it with taxpayer money, so shouldn't the taxpayers be the ones who get immunity?
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, yeah, I understand why it's there, and I can agree with a form of qualified immunity. But over the decades I've read far too many abuses of immunity by government officials & employees. I think it needs to be more limited, and maybe much more limited.