Talk:Legal immunity

Problems with the article (from a United States legal point of view): Under the 'TYPES' chapter, Sovereign Immunity is not clearly established from Qualified Immunity. Sovereign Immunity is King and Queens immunity, and a reason why we fought the American Revolution (King George III tyranny). It's a form of immunity that holds them above the law, even if they break laws or use gross negligence. Here, there is no recourse in court. Qualified Immunity is something very different. Supposably, this was the answer to sovereign immunity after the Revolutionary War. Here, all government officials, from the highest to the lowest, have qualified immunity. It means that they are immune from lawsuits during the performance of their work, as long as they don't break laws or use gross negligence. This is an ideal standard because it holds them accountable, just like ordinary people, if they step out of line. This standard even accepts mistakes during the performance of their official acts, because, after all, we are all human.

Separately, the idea under tort law that we, the pubic, must obtain permission from the state to sue the state, is a perfunctory matter. It stems from the Old World, but it's not a severe thing today. If a citizen decides to sue the government in the United States (either a federal, state, or local entity), he fills out a form and supplies copies of his evidence to an independent body, where it is evaluated and a judgement made as to it's credibility. If it is credible, the plaintiff is notified of this, he is told to go ahead with his lawsuit in court, and the parties he is suing will also be informed. They will be told that they are having their immunity withdrawn, and that they must hire their own lawyers because the state will not subsidize crime by providing for their defense. This entire process, of having to notify the state, is in place to make this determination, and it exists for the pubic good. The matter of 'tort law reform' is discussed to simplify the process even further, by removing this step. However, if we go straight to trial, who will determine if officials deserve immunity? The Judiciary? Well, if that's the case, we are putting the cart before the horse, because a determination has to be made before a trial begins as to the status of government representation. Should the judge assigned to the case make this call, or, are we better off with the status quo, where independence from bias may be stronger? It's a hard call. Lord Milner (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)