Written by olsonaplc-34aSchool: Sioux Central
In the Rehberg v. Paulk case, my class has decided that Rehberg was in the right. Paulk should be tried, and have to pay Rehberg retribution. Paulk lied about Rehberg to the Grand Jury. Paulk ruined Rehbergs’ name so money should be paid. There should not be immunity to Paulk, because lying is not apart of his job. In the case, Brisco v. LaHue, 640 U.S. 325 (1983), Brisco had wanted to sue LaHue, his police officer, because he thought LaHue was lying during his trial case. LaHue was protected because of absolute immunity as a police officer, who was just doing his job. This is not like this case because he had to do what his job needed him to do. In this case,Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 2009, the officials that were sued by Goldstein were rightfully sued because he was wrongfully prosecuted. In this case absolute immunity could not help anyone. In the case my class is discussing, Rehberg v. Paulk, Rehberg should be charged for what he did do wrong, but not for what he was wrongly accused of. Paulk should give Rehberg retribution for what Paulk had done to Rehberg. In Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993), Buckley was being prosecuted with false evidence. The evidence that was given hadn’t been proven to be true, because prosecutors went to someone until they were given the information they wanted to hear. This was not fair to Buckley. In this case there was no absolute immunity, because finding somebody to give false testimony is not apart of their job. In two of the three cases given, lying was at the heart of the issue. The unethical behaviors of those we trust to protect us destroy what the job description their job entails. Therefore, there should be no absolute immunity. Paulk does owe retribution to Rehberg.