There are both incarceration and financial penalties in 18USC242.
The law also makes it clear that the individual is equally culpable along with the agency making the order.
If it is not by gaency order, the individual is culpable as a citizen, not a badge.
That opinion is of special interest to critics of qualified immunity—which in many cases has protected police officers from liability for shocking behavior—because it was written by 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is reportedly the leading contender to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. In addition to supporting legislation that would limit or abolish qualified immunity, its critics hope the Supreme Court will reconsider the doctrine in an appropriate case. While the 7th Circuit’s decision in Rainsberger v. Benner does not reveal how Barrett would vote in such a case, it does suggest she is not the sort of judge who bends over backward to protect police officers accused of outrageous misconduct.
I believe currently, a judge must determine if qualified immunity is waved. Since there are so many corrupt judges, I would like to see some sort of overhaul. Of course the police must be protected from people who sue everyone, but at the same time, the public must feel secure in the civil rights being protected.
I would point out, that most of us would be disgusted if a police officer would not allow a black man into a public area, because he was black. This is clearly a violation of his rights. Yet, too many times we look the other way, or make excuses, when it comes to the 1st and the 4th.
I am not going to pretend to know anything about the law, so correct me if I’m wrong.
18USC242 was written in 1909.
Qualified Immunity was enacted in 1967.
grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits
I think a judge, or panel of judges must determine if someones qualified immunity should be waived.
I think judges are also protected by this legal principal.
It seems like it would be hard to get a judge to waive a protection for one person, when they enjoy the same protection?
So, in other words, a jury of our peers is not determining if an officers actions are outrageous. But someone with the same protections, protections we don’t have by the way, is making this determination. That is what I think needs fixing.