|
|
Adam Strong-Morse@ahstrongmorse.bsky.social |
Qualified Immunity is terrible and should be done away with, but I don’t follow the argument based on costs to taxpayers. Eliminating QI would directly make municipalities liable for more misconduct, not less. That’s good-we should compensate victims of govt. misconduct and deter abuse. [1/2]
2 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
Adam Strong-Morse
@ahstrongmorse.bsky.social
[ View ] |
But that’s an argument for accepting the cost of eliminating QI, not for saving money by eliminating QI. In order to save money, eliminating QI would have to have such a large effect on reducing misconduct that it overcame the direct increase in municipal liability. Seems implausible. [2/2]
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Jon
@zer0bee.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Counterpoint: Take away their ability to commit civil rights violations with complete immunity and, theoretically, we'll see less egregious civil rights violations and, as a result, less wasteful settlements.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes