CritEst - Critical Estoppel Blog
Description: A blog about forensic psychology, criminology and psychology-law by San Francisco Bay Area psychologist Karen Franklin, PhD
In their defense, the psychologists argued that they were absolutely immune from liability because they performed a function that was integral to the Parole Board, whose officers are immune from liability over their decisions. They contended that objectivity would suffer if psychologists had to worry about being sued over adverse opinions. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Unlike the Parole Board officers, the psychologists did not have decision-making authority. Rather, their roles were merely advisory. Further
There are two relevant kinds of immunity. There is absolute immunity, aka quasi-judicial immunity. This is the kind that judges get when acting in their judicial capacities. Similarly, legislators and government prosecutors. Then there is qualified immunity . That’s the 1967 SCOTUS doctrine that has enabled police to get away with so much corrupt and violent conduct. It bestows immunity to government representatives who unlawfully violate a person’s constitutional rights unless they should have known at tha
A YouTube video of the 9th Circuit hearing in Gay v. Parsons is HERE . A webinar on psychology and qualified immunity, featuring psycholegal scholar Jessica Bregant of Indiana University, is HERE .
CritEst - Critical Estoppel Blog