RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up


Written by olsonaplc-3cc

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The jury did the right thing by not broadening the right to qualified immunity.  I believe the police are just doing there job. They should have the right to absolute immunity, for now, due to that fact. The absolute immunity does need to be fixed though. We don’t live in a perfect country, the justice system is not perfect, but there has to be some other solution that has not yet been discovered. Many of the cases that would be brought back into the system are small, and it isn’t worth clogging up the justice system for a handful of lawsuits. The respondents, Paulk and Hodges, not only lied but committed perjury, and no one should be immune from such a serious crime or be above the law, but allowing the suit to go through would allow one case to change the justice system. It is not worth that. In the end I would go against unnecessary and unintelligent cases coming back into the court systems. Rehberg was treated unfairly and lied to but to broaden the right from absolute immunity to qualified immunity would make more of a mess of the justice system.


This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Interesting post! Is there a point at which police go past doing their jobs and may actually be going too far? If so, what determines where that line is?