Government Wrongdoers Must Compensate Victims

[MerryPrankster]

What if laws were in place that would require victims of governmental injustice (for example, the people imprisoned on spurious charges of child molestation during the day care witch hunts in the 1980s or the survivors of the Waco fiasco) to be compensated, not by the taxpayers, but by the overzealous officials responsible for the debacle?

It seems rather ridiculous that if an overzealous prosecutor suppresses evidence or a so-called "social worker" bullies a child into making false accusations in order to secure a conviction that is later thrown out, the taxpayers and not the officials themelves get the bill if the unjust-convictee decides to sue.

It's the officials' fault, not the general public's. Plus seeing a few officials being bankrupted for their shenanigans would "encourage the others" to be more circumspect.

When could such a program be put in place, and how practical would it be?

 

[fhaessig]

When could such a program be put in place,

A couple days after the fist Dis winter olympic games

 

[MerryPrankster]

A couple days after the fist Dis winter olympic games

What happened then?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

What happened then?

He means "on a cold day in Hell"

 

[Hendryk]

A couple days after the fist Dis winter olympic games

An ice hockey game I'd like to see: Dis vs. Malebolge

 

[Weapon M]

"Government wrongdoers????"

My dear fellow, I am sure that Grimmy will back me up here, there is no such thing....

Why, I take umbrage at your thinly veiled attempt at besmirching some of my fellow government employees. I demand compensation for your evil, misguided suggestion!!!

 

[Cockroach]

Why, I take umbrage at your thinly veiled attempt at besmirching some of my fellow government employees. I demand compensation for your evil, misguided suggestion!!!

Since thats coming board militia nut I assume it is meant to be sarcastic.

 

[Dave Howery]

OTOH, the government workers might be shocked into taking more care when they investigate such things... OTOH, they might also be leery of actually investigating anyone for fear of being sued...

 

[stevep]

OTOH, the government workers might be shocked into taking more care when they investigate such things... OTOH, they might also be leery of actually investigating anyone for fear of being sued...

I think that would be the big problem with such a suggestion. You would then have people complaining that government [and similar organisations] NOT doing enough against criminals and problems. You get that to a degree already but if such legislation really tipped the balance toward a more cautious and non-interventionist approach.

The other problem would be identifying the 'wrong-doers'. 'I was only following orders' comes to mind. There would be a lot more bureaucracy as everybody tries to cover their backs keeping records of who told them to do what. [Apart from those people who just want to get things done and solve problems. They will get shafted!].

It sounds like a good idea but it has serious problems to overcome before it could be considered.

Steve

 

[Quiet_Man]

What if laws were in place that would require victims of governmental injustice (for example, the people imprisoned on spurious charges of child molestation during the day care witch hunts in the 1980s or the survivors of the Waco fiasco) to be compensated, not by the taxpayers, but by the overzealous officials responsible for the debacle?

It seems rather ridiculous that if an overzealous prosecutor suppresses evidence or a so-called "social worker" bullies a child into making false accusations in order to secure a conviction that is later thrown out, the taxpayers and not the officials themelves get the bill if the unjust-convictee decides to sue.

It's the officials' fault, not the general public's. Plus seeing a few officials being bankrupted for their shenanigans would "encourage the others" to be more circumspect.

When could such a program be put in place, and how practical would it be?

Not practicable at all, those in charge would be even more fearful of making a move in case they got sued.

 

[Ian the Admin]

What if laws were in place that would require victims of governmental injustice (for example, the people imprisoned on spurious charges of child molestation during the day care witch hunts in the 1980s or the survivors of the Waco fiasco) to be compensated, not by the taxpayers, but by the overzealous officials responsible for the debacle?

Pardon my interruption of your fantasy, but how the hell would this possibly work? How do you assign *individual* responsibility to large-scale screwups? I ask especially because your example is not an example of one bureaucrat gone bad, but an often-cited example of *mass hysteria* in which everyone including and especially the public is drawn in. Exactly which person in a case of mass hysteria should have to compensate the victims?

 

[Torqumada]

Pardon my interruption of your fantasy, but how the hell would this possibly work? How do you assign *individual* responsibility to large-scale screwups? I ask especially because your example is not an example of one bureaucrat gone bad, but an often-cited example of *mass hysteria* in which everyone including and especially the public is drawn in. Exactly which person in a case of mass hysteria should have to compensate the victims?

The Media who fueled the fire.

Torqumada

 

[MerryPrankster]

Pardon my interruption of your fantasy, but how the hell would this possibly work? How do you assign *individual* responsibility to large-scale screwups? I ask especially because your example is not an example of one bureaucrat gone bad, but an often-cited example of *mass hysteria* in which everyone including and especially the public is drawn in. Exactly which person in a case of mass hysteria should have to compensate the victims?

In the Wenatchee case, there was Bob Perez, who played a major role in railroading innocent parents and teachers. In fact, according to Paul Craig Roberts, Perez actually broke a child's arm in order to get an accusation.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/wenatchee.htm

In a similar case in Dade County Florida, the prime mover/shaker was none other than Janet Reno.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/9062/witchhunt.html#country

Not to mention if it turns out the Duke lacrosse players are innocent, Mike Nifong would be in very deep trouble.

Need I supply more? I believe Paul Craig Roberts wrote a book chock-ful of cases of overzealous prosecutors. It's called The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

 

[MerryPrankster]

OTOH, the government workers might be shocked into taking more care when they investigate such things... OTOH, they might also be leery of actually investigating anyone for fear of being sued...

True. I suppose that's why people who make statements in court cannot be sued for slander/libel.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

I think they do sue the wrongdoer. The general idea is sue everybody, yes? the courts will determine who was actually at fault and by how much.

A company cannot escape liability for its employees and neither should a government just because the taxpayer will eventually get the bill. Stockholders and taxpayers are both innoncent parties but somebody has to pay. Otherwise, noone could ever get restitution because the company would just throw the whole thing onto the employee, and it's not worth suing just to bankrupt someone. You're trying to get money, not satisfaction.

What you want to do is make the laws penal as well as civil. I don't understand why someone who is proven to have deliberately and with malice sent someone else to jail unjustifiably shouldn't have to do some time themselves. Making them serve the same sentence would be poetic as hell, but will never happen probably for just that reason.

 

[Johnnyreb]

If the idea is that every person in a country be sued, well, the politicians claim to represent everyone in their country, so it is the politicians who should be sued.

I am surprised that someone bearing the name Napoleon should so misunderstand the nature and effect of political power. As the great Sir Humphrey Appelby said, politicians want (a) to order everyone about and (b) to be liked. These ambitions are mutually exclusive. This dichotomy causes politicians to have at best a case of mild schizophrenia, at worst a pattern of hysterical passive/aggressive behaviour.

The point is that civil servants must sort out a mess of ill-researched, badly thought-out, frequently contradictory and often hysterical political demands. Out of this mish-mash emanating from the political body, civil servants must create a viable and effective policy.

You have only to glance at the texts of some of the latest UK Acts of Parliament to see what I am talking about.

Who therefore carries the responsibility, where civil servants overstep a mark which may itself be impractical, vague or contradictory?

For instance civil servants may have to carry out a necessary though unpleasant task, such as removing parents from their abusive children. At the same time, it is now common practice to set "targets" for government employees. If the civil servants overstep the mark and improperly send parents to care homes, in order to meet these targets (and thereby keep their jobs) who is to blame? The civil servants, or the politicians who set the targets?

As can be seen from the above example, the injustice can arise from something which has nothing to do with the issue which causes public concern.

In a way, its not possible to resolve this question as the nature of civil servants can vary from country to country. In the UK civil servants are self-effacing, dedicated to carrying out the wishes of their political masters (I'm quoting Sir Humphrey here) whereas in the USA many such officials are elected and have an eye to the voters at the next election.

In any event, can the voters duck out from responsibility? In many cases, they consider the issues, weigh up the policies, then vote for the guy with the honest face. Maybe Napoleon is right: Everyone should be sued.

I am sorry to carry on at such length, but I have an entertaining and informative story, which may throw some light on the debate:-

The first time I ever disembarked at Washington Dulles, I was going through the usual Immigration process about smoked meats and so forth. The Officer asked, what was my profession? I said, I'm a civil servant, what you might call a public servant (I wasn't much familiar with US terminology at that stage) The Officer smiled and said, Oh, we have civil servants over here. Its the politicians who call themselves public servants.

It was the first and only time I ever got a laugh out of the US Immigration Service.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I think they do sue the wrongdoer. The general idea is sue everybody, yes? the courts will determine who was actually at fault and by how much.

A company cannot escape liability for its employees and neither should a government just because the taxpayer will eventually get the bill. Stockholders and taxpayers are both innoncent parties but somebody has to pay. Otherwise, noone could ever get restitution because the company would just throw the whole thing onto the employee, and it's not worth suing just to bankrupt someone. You're trying to get money, not satisfaction.

What you want to do is make the laws penal as well as civil. I don't understand why someone who is proven to have deliberately and with malice sent someone else to jail unjustifiably shouldn't have to do some time themselves. Making them serve the same sentence would be poetic as hell, but will never happen probably for just that reason.

That's the point--somebody has to pay. Better Bob Perez and Mike Nifong than the taxpayers of the states of Washington and North Carolina. Even if you can get less money out of an individual troublemaker, seeing a person bankrupted and his life destroyed should serve as a useful warning to others.

Good point on jailing said misbehaving bureaucrats. That might be more workable, although I'm sure they can be fined too.

 

[hexicus]

I dont get it

Surely if a government empoyee breaks the law (by covering up evidence or whatever) they can be sued currently? I thought the only person who couldn't be sued was the President (at least until they are out of office).

And if they aren't breaking the law why should they be liable to be sued?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Surely if a government empoyee breaks the law (by covering up evidence or whatever) they can be sued currently? I thought the only person who couldn't be sued was the President (at least until they are out of office).

And if they aren't breaking the law why should they be liable to be sued?

I think the premise is when the government is sued, the individual government official(s) must pay the damages out of their own pocket.

The Wenatchee government awarded millions to various people wrongfully convicted in the 1994-5 pedophile witch hunt, but I don't think Bob Perez (the chief wrongdoer) and other child-protection officials had to pay a nickel. The award money came from the taxpayers.

 

[Derek Jackson]

It may in some cases be possible to sue an individual public servant- however lawyers will usually advise that there is no point in seeking money damages out of people who are usually not so well off.

One of the original premises of this thread was based on sympathy for folk who first attacted attention by firing on people trying to carry out a lawful search warrant. I am sceptical of a lot of what is implied.

I notice that Social Workers for instance get a higher rating that police despite, for instance, recent evidence suggesting that Chicago cops engaged in actions amounting to torture