Ask Your Legal Question. Legal Experts Answer You ASAP.

(Not a Legal Question?)

Should the police have any civil liability for their ...

Sent to Legal Experts January 6 2008 at 4:44 AM
   

Should the police have any civil liability for their actions? If so why or why no?

 

Customer (name blocked for privacy)
Status:  Closed   Value: $15
Answer
January 6 2008 at 4:59 AM (15 minutes and 13 seconds later)
         
REPLIEDCheck Mark
Hello,

There is considerable debate over this issue. There is also a question about liability whether you mean whether individual officers should face personal liability or whether the police force in general should be liable for the actions of their officers.

Many would argue that police should be entitled to immunity from suit. So much of their difficult interactions with criminals make it difficult to do their jobs unless they are free from the crippling affect of numerous suits second guessing their actions.

My personal view is that police should be liable, both personally and the force as an entity in cases where they violate clear and well established rights. Police hold a position of trust and power over the people. When they abuse that population, either by beating people unnecessarily or taking other clearly illegal actions they should be held accountable.

There are attempts to hold police accountable through internal investigations that could result in employment actions taken against the officer or even criminal prosecution. However, those internal commissions are often so biased in favor of police and so willing to hide abuse to protect the reputation of the department that they are often ineffective.

Civil liability provides not only a way to bring serious police abuses to the public's attention, it puts real financial pressure on officers and the department generally to behave properly. It also encourages the openness and transparency necessary to retain the public trust.

I hope this helps!


___________________

Please keep in mind that information in this forum is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not constitute creation of an attorney client relationship. Before acting on any such information, you are always advised to consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction who can take the time to review all the facts and laws relevant to your situation.

Thanks for your support. If I answered your question, I hope you will accept and leave positive feedback. If my answer was incomplete or I misunderstood your question, please send a follow up.
Picture
Guru_Guy -- Lawyer (JD) -- 100% Positive Feedback on 900 Legal Accepts
My specialties include Civil Rights and Constitutional law, as well as general practice issues.
Reply
January 7 2008 at 9:58 AM (1 day and 4 hours later)
         
Reply to Guru_Guy's Post: I have another question and will add money!! Should juveniles under the age of 16 be "waived" to adult criminal courts? Fully support your position. Currently juveniles over the age of 16 are treated as adults for criminal prosecution. At what age should juveniles be treated as adults for prosecution? Explain why you believe this.
Customer (name blocked for privacy)
Answer
January 7 2008 at 10:32 AM (34 minutes and 19 seconds later)
         
ACCEPTEDCheck Mark
Hello again,

This is also a controversial question with many valid points of view. I am happy to provide my opinion, but again it is just my opinion.

My view is that minors under the age of 18 should be treated as minors. The age of 18 is the age generally accepted by society where people have the responsibility to behave as adults.

Prior to age 18, we do not entrust children with the right to vote. My view, which is shared by many political thinkers, is that one should not be compelled to accept full responsibility for submission to the law before one can even have any say in who makes the laws. Because the voting age is 18, that should also be the age where there is adult responsibility for obedience to the law.

Some will argue that if children commit adult crimes, they should suffer adult consequences. But that fails to take into account that children often do not show the mature judgment that adults do. Any age line will, of course, be somewhat arbitrary, but such lines must be drawn. Further, just because a child is charged as a juvenile, that does not mean they should necessarily get off relatively easily. Lengthy sentences may be appropriate for juveniles who commit serious crimes, but they need to have some chance to get their lives back together, a chance we might not offer an adult with greater maturity.

It is for that reason, for example, that the Supreme Court has held that the death penalty is unconstitutional for those under age 18. That same logic can be applied to justify sentences to those under age 18 to take into account their immaturity and place a greater focus on rehabilitation.


I hope this helps!


___________________

Please keep in mind that information in this forum is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not constitute creation of an attorney client relationship. Before acting on any such information, you are always advised to consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction who can take the time to review all the facts and laws relevant to your situation.

Thanks for your support. If I answered your question, I hope you will accept and leave positive feedback. If my answer was incomplete or I misunderstood your question, please send a follow up.
Picture
Guru_Guy -- Lawyer (JD) -- 100% Positive Feedback on 900 Legal Accepts
My specialties include Civil Rights and Constitutional law, as well as general practice issues.
Reply
January 21 2008 at 8:58 AM (13 days and 22 hours later)
         
Hey I have got some more questions and would love for you to help me out.. I am unable to request...so they are just posted up..
Customer (name blocked for privacy)
Think you can answer this question?
Login or Become an Expert

Related Answers

 

DISCLAIMER: You acknowledge that any information you may obtain from individuals you contact through use of the JustAnswer service comes from those individuals, not from JustAnswer, and that JustAnswer is not in any way responsible for any of the information these third parties may supply. The site and services are provided "as is" with no warranty and no representations are made regarding the qualification of an Expert. Responses and comments on JustAnswer are for general information and are not intended to substitute for informed professional advice (such as medical, legal, investment or accounting) and do not establish a professional-client relationship. JustAnswer is not intended or designed to address EMERGENCY QUESTIONS which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service.

JustAnswer > Legal