The Concept of Legal Information Institute - Essay Example

?OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Public officers, in the fulfilment of duty, are not released from their legal liabilities. Being in a public office implies manifold legal responsibilities. They are confronted with numerous sources of legal accountabilities. Public officers are constantly held accountable of the ethical use of power and the appropriate, fair, constitutional applications and interpretations of the law. The moral and proper execution of legal authority should not be contingent to the individual discretion of any public officer. Albeit, litigations filed hostile to the public officers, administrative officer and offices are progressively being termed as factions or perpetrators with immediate or delegated liability. Furthermore, in order to maintain their legal liabilities to the least possible, public officers should constantly take action in the interior of the extent of their functions, understand and be familiar with the rules and regulations of their corresponding subdivisions, keep precise and correct inscribed records in contentious cases, uphold effective interactions with the society, and continually refer to legal advisors in cases where there is uncertainty in the course of action. However, most often than none, public officials are favoured with official impunity. Public officers run for office to acquire wealth and power. In some countries, abuses of power are rampant and are being used as leverage for their personal objectives. As a result, extrajudicial killings become widespread and rambling. This particular study seeks to elaborate on the legal liabilities of public officers. In addition, this should inform the reader regarding the scope of functions of public officers on the whole and provide knowledge or grounds of assessment from which discretion towards public officers can be obtained. OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 2 Introduction "The law under which government officials operate permits them to inflict injury on others, under prescribed circumstances, in established ways, and in carefully (and sometimes not so carefully) calibrated amounts" (Mashaw, 1978). Undeniably, in the performance of duty of public officials, unethical use of power is always a possibility. Public officials, under the permission of the law, are allowed to at least cause injury on others. Albeit their authority to do so is limited by the existing laws, many public officials are leveraging this prerogative to serve their personal interests. This gives them the opportunity to impose coercion in influencing the decision or leanings of their constituents to favour their individual goals, especially during times of election or in passing a particular governmental project from which they can corrupt big amounts of money. Certainly, the law carries on. What is more alarming is that "it sometimes tells the official that a failure to injure - that is, to coerce compliance with a predetermined rule of conduct - is a dereliction of official duty" (Mashaw, 1978). While the law is clear that the authority to cause injury on others is delimited on certain grounds, oftentimes, this is being overlooked and exploited. The interpretation of the law becomes superficial and unconstitutional. It is rather disturbing why the constitution provides such sorts of law that act on the borderline between its use to perform official duty and the feasibility of misusing it. This study does not resolve this weakness but presents the manifold possibilities of divergence from the real intents of the law. The public officials therefore should be aware of their legal liabilities. They should carefully interpret the laws provided for them by the constitution. Inasmuch as they have the freedom to use it in any manner they wish to, they OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 3 should remember the consequences that it carry. By and large, the purpose of this paper is not to solely scrutinize the validity and the applicability of the law, but to elaborate on the various legal responsibilities of public officials – how they should constantly observe it and how they should perform their tasks in accordance with the real intentions of the law. This exposition will tackle on two different sub-topics. The first part of this piece will elaborate on the breadth of injuries that public officers instigate in the process of performing their respective duties and obligations. As provided by law, public officers are permitted to inflict injury – that is of distinct nature – on others. These injuries do not present any resemblance or likeness to private civilian harms. We are encouraged to take into consideration if there is a need for public officials to perform unusual functions. The second part of this exposition describes the most resorted leverage of public officials which is the prevailing law in official immunity. The explanation will be regulated by the laws at the federal level: divergences amongst official immunity principles and canons from one state to another in the context of legal expression. Legal Liabilities of Public Officials on Causing Injury on Others Damaging acts of public officials betrothed in the implementation of the law are common. While physical attacks make up a considerable fraction of detrimental and unjustified official execution activity, implementation of this law may cause injury on others even with the absence of physical contact. Damaging exposure may comprise the next sued acts. OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 4 Proliferating unfounded and subjective comments, stating the detrimental effects of a particular subject, and later found out to be invalid, or that the execution of the governmental policies are anticipated could bring in undesirable circumstances. The people will have the perception that they were wronged and afflicted. The validity of the actions of public officials, as may have already been mentioned on this exposition and according to the “fundamental principle of American law” (“Legal liability”, 2011), is contingent to and verified in “the ordinary courts according to the same rules that govern the decision of suits between private individuals” (“Legal liability”, 2011). In other words, on the whole, a public official do not have the capability to stand up for or to validate any unlawful, unconstitutional actions, regardless of whether it is being done in response to the calls of duty, by founding his official standing or demonstrating the commands of a political boss. The political perspective on the activity of administrative law is oftentimes related to the public officers’ ethical use of power. Many public officers in the past, especially in the federal level, were suspected of playing on their authorities to carry out some sort of abuse of power. During the time of the George W Bush Administration, “questionable uses of power in the George W. Bush Administration have similarly raised questions about legal liability when officials have followed the advice of legal counsel” (“Session 11”, n.d.). The infliction of cruelty and agony, for instance, persists to be a contentious issue in the matters of public officials' performance of duty; although, most of these public officials assert that they are just fulfilling their duty and they did not defied the constitution. Torts OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 5 According to Legal Information Institute (2010) of the Cornell University Law School, “torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for lawsuit. These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party. While some torts are also crimes punishable with imprisonment, the primary aim of tort law is to provide relief for the damages incurred and deter others from committing the same harms.” There are two types of torts: intentional or deliberate or accidental in nature or as a result of negligence. These types of legal liabilities are applicable to even the least possible qualified public officers; hence, “community supervision officers” (“Legal Liabilities”, n.d.) can likewise be held accountable. Intentional Tort Intentional tort is “a type of tort that can only result from an intentional act of the defendant.  Depending on the exact tort alleged, either general or specific intent will need to be proven” (Legal Information Institute [LII], 2010). In other words, the action was deliberately done or the actor has complete awareness of the act. Some of the common intentional torts are: “assault, battery, false imprisonment” (Legal Information Institute [LII], 2010), etc. In order for a certain injurious act by a public officer to be admitted as an intentional tort, it is imperative for the complainant to prove that the defendant committed the action; the act should be deliberate or intentional in nature; the injury was resulted from the injurious action by the public officer or the actor; and the injuries or damages should be apparent. Negligence Tort “A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.  The behaviour usually consists of actions, but can also OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 5 consist of omissions when there is some duty to act” (Legal Information Institute [LII], 2010). In general, these kinds of tort cases are “filed by persons that are injured by the criminal behaviour of probationers or parolees that recidivate while under supervision” (“Legal Liabilities”, n.d.). These are classified in three main categories: slight negligence, gross negligence and wilful negligence. Official Immunity Public officials are bestowed with official immunity which protects them from suit. “Official immunity is granted to those professions that must be allowed to at least in the majority of circumstances, actively pursue their duties without undue fear or intimidation” (“Legal Liabilities”, n.d.). Absolute immunity is for public officials who are assigned in offices that necessitate unhindered decision making duties. Qualified immunity, on the other hand, is applicable to community supervision officers. Conclusion Being a public officer entails manifold legal responsibilities that have to be construed by both the public officers and the people. The involvements and intricacies encompassing the legal liabilities of public officers are complex and sometimes tricky. Because of this, public officers, therefore, should understand and appreciate thoroughly the possible legal implications of their decisions or actions, whether an act is authorized by the constitution or marred by consolidating public duty with personal goals. Public officers should understand the strictures and boundaries connected with their protection as provided by official immunity. References Legal Information Institute (2010, August 19). Negligence. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence Legal Information Institute (2010, August 19). Tort. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort Legal Liabilities and Risk Management. [pdf]. Retrieved from: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/27014_1.pdf Legal Liability of Public Officials To Private Individuals Injured By Their Acts; Ultra Vires Act (2011).Retrieved from: http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United- States/769-Legal-Liability-Of-Public-Officials-To-Private-Individu.html Mashaw, J. Civil Liability of Government Officers: Property Rights and Official Accountability [PDF document]. Retrieved from: Yale Law School Online Web site: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2145&context=fss_paper s Public Administration and Emergency Management (n.d.). Session 11: Legal and liability issues. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from: http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/paem.asp Read More