Talk:Judicial immunity

message: That judge did violate the man's right to bodily integrity, however, the state-level remedy was appropriate. He committed battery, and plead no contest to the charges. I'm sure he was liable for a personal injury or battery tort as well, but not a civil rights claim. He bit the man as himself, not as the State.
But what about the judge in Florida who made a woman sign a release form allowing her ex-husband to "circumcise" their son? The woman was held in jail, in contempt of court, until she signed the paper. (search for "Saving Chase" to learn about it.) Infant genital mutilation certainly violates the right to bodily integrity. It is mayhem, in that it causes permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function. So a judge ordering someone to sign a private law contract to "authorize" something that is inherently a 1st degree felony criminal battery, is much worse than a mere "nose biting".
Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. It is unreasonable for judges to be immune from prosecution when their conduct on the bench is seriously criminal. If we don't enforce title 18 USC S241 and S242, then what use is the law at all? When even the court cheats, where is the rule of law? The "bar"? (punning synonym for "tavern" or "saloon")
Ideas for rhetoric, not necessarily Wikiopedia: Are the traditional judical and prosecutorial immunity a result of consideration for diminished capacity? Keys: overloaded courts, boehm's laws, mass incarceration, gulag archipeligo, "whos job is it", "what kind of work ethic is that?", argument from reasonableness, argument from ignorance, slippery slope, sorites argument, reduction of jury number to one prosecutor, etc.
They can say that because they take responsibility for their own actions, they are thereby not showing diminished capacity... Hmmm, ok, but does "responsibility for their own actions" mean "judges in their own cause"?
Do they think they can do anything they want? If there's a double star standard where judges or prosecutors can get away with crimes against rights, then that means they're either applying a paraconsistent logic, or the principle of explosion. But that is improper because equal protection of law or uniform operation of law demands a consistent logic.
In a republic, nobody is above the law. But who watches the watchers? Did the "judges in their own cause" have the right to supposedly revoke the right to private prosecution of offenses against the public law contract with society? I say no. It would be unreasonable and inconsistent.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlHegbloom (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In the U.S. at least, though they might have immunity from lawsuit, judges can also be overruled, and judicial misconduct may trigger removal by other judges or impeachment. Some jurisdictions elect judges and have the ability to do a recall election or simply not re-elect a mis-behaving judge. I added mention of these things to the article to clarify that this immunity does not insulate judges from all consequences of bad behavior. This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the Wikipedia article, so I don't think the rest of what you said had anything actionable here. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Nose-biter

message: Can someone give some examples of where a judge has had to rely on his judicial immunity? I have already found one, Sirros v. Moore 1975 however I could use some more authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.255.19  (talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples requested

message: How does this qualify as an article? It has terrible grammar and seems like the rant of some angry American. Reverting now. 75.85.32.224 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that egregious content; the article seems to have gotten a lot better since then. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: A note for anyone taking an interest in this page in the future: I'm in the midst of doing some cleanup, copy-editing, and general improvements. I'm hoping to remove some of the maintenance tags, but will likely not be expanding the article enough to warrant removing the "US-focus" tag. That would be a very worthy future task! Arcendeight (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrying out some cleanup