I think I’ve been ranting about this topic since I were but a Baby Blogger, even pre-Pussification-Instalanche-fame/infamy.
To recap: under Hammurabic Law (which pre-dates the Hebraic Pentateuch by a couple of centuries or so), if a judge freed an accused murderer, only for said murderer to go on to commit another murder, then the judge would face the same fate as the murderer (once captured), i.e. execution. I don’t have access to any relevant stats, but I cannot help but think that judges became extremely leery about giving some obviously-violent scrote a slap on the wrist and sending him home for tea with his Mum, instead of helping him up the stairs to the gallows.
Then some legal asshole mind said, “Oh noes! This is a terrible idea!” and thus was born an even worse idea, that of “qualified immunity” whereby a judge who made a piss-poor decision was now shielded from any kind of retribution.
Kevin Finn at American Thinker puts it far more eloquently than I:
Politicians, bureaucrats, and judges routinely issue rulings and enact policies that carry enormous ripple effects on society — yet they are insulated from the human and financial costs incurred when those choices prove misguided. We see this being played out in the criminal justice system, where decisions about release, bail, and sentencing directly shape public safety.
Judges exercise considerable discretion in pretrial releases, sentencing guidelines, and immigration-related detentions. Meanwhile, politicians shape the statutory frameworks that govern these processes, from sanctuary policies to sentencing reforms. When an individual with a documented history of violence is released and later commits additional crimes, the consequences fall squarely on their victims, their families and communities. The decision-makers themselves face no equivalent personal stake. Federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure, which brings its own issues. State judges may face infrequent retention elections, and elected officials can pivot to new priorities or blame systemic factors.
Then later down the page of said article comes this little ray of sunshine:
Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia has publicly broached a direct and startling, albeit satisfying response to this dynamic. In a recent statement addressing sanctuary policies, he advocated treating politicians who enact or defend such measures as accessories to crimes committed by those shielded under them — charging them with complicity in resulting murders, rapes, or other offenses. “The easiest way to get rid of sanctuary policies,” he argued, “is to start charging the politicians that support sanctuary policies as accessories to murder, rape, and pedophilia.”
His formal legislation targets fiscal accountability — codifying oversight mechanisms like the aptly-named Florida Agency for Fiscal Oversight (FAFO), allowing recommendations for removal of local officials for financial abuse, malfeasance, or misfeasance — the accessory principle he mentioned suggests a broader framework. Were this to be applied thoughtfully to criminal justice, it suggests that judges or politicians whose actions foreseeably enable violent recidivism could face similar scrutiny, transforming enablers into accountable parties rather than distant observers.
Once again, Florida has beaten Texas to the punch — as least as far as I know — because if ever there’s an idea which should resonate with all right-thinking Texans, it’s this one.
I have little reason for optimism that this worthy initiative will become law — nobody wants to be shielded more for their actions than a politician, and lawyers [with some considerable overlap] will likewise strive with might and main to protect their own, both using all the political- and legal legerdemains at their disposal. Politicians, at least, have some accountability in that they are exposed to electoral consequence; but judges, as noted above, face little such accountability other than at the local level.
But the very horror that would greet Ingoglia’s initiative imposed at the federal level makes me think that it’s a really good idea, and very much an idea whose time has come.
And I’m pretty sure that King Hammurabi would agree with me.
You know it’s a great idea, but has no chance of ever coming to pass until we* start shooting people.
* – by we, I don’t mean anyone in particular. Just the general “we” which could be anyone.
Through a variety of circumstances growing up I have seen how qualified immunity gets used by the bureaucracy. It needed to go 50 years ago. Now more than ever.
And if a judge finds a defendant guilty who is later shown to be innocent, the judge should receive the same sentence. Or should there be immunity for that category of error?
Without QI, people would face personal liability for official actions taken in complex and often ambiguous conditions. So they wouldn’t act at all. QI is abused – but it’s also necessary.
Oh, and WRT that Hammurabic Law: what if an accused murderer is in fact innocent of that crime, and then later commits a murder under entirely separate circumstances? (E.g. drug dealer A is accused of killing rival drug dealer B, who was actually killed by drug dealer C; a year later, A kills drug dealer D.)
> And if a judge finds a defendant guilty who is later shown to be innocent, the judge should receive the same sentence.
Your terms are acceptable.
> Without QI, people would face personal liability for official actions taken in complex and often ambiguous conditions. So they wouldn’t act at all. QI is abused – but it’s also necessary.
Perhaps that liability is what they need to ensure fewer fuckups on their part. The increasing level of abuses and usurpations we’ve seen from our alleged “betters” suggests that we would be better off without it.
If this ever came to pass, who would be doing the prosecuting? Fellow judges and lawyers. I predict slaps on the wrists following any unlikely convictions.
As the saying used to go, “That will be the result, just as sure as God made little green apples.
Lawyers have a number of jokes that all end with “Professional Courtesy.”