3

The US Supreme Court ruled in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County that the police could not be sued for failing to protect citizens, as no such constitutional obligation exists on their part. This has been used by gun advocates as an argument for expanding the right to own guns in the US.

On the other hand authorities in countries such as Japan or the UK frequently claim that citizens have no reason to own guns for self-defence, as they could always call the police for help instead. But could the police actually be sued in those countries for failing to carry out their responsibilities? If not, what reasons have been given for simultaneously preventing citizens from protecting themselves and failing to redress situations where the police fails to protect individuals?

  • 2
    Hmmmm. I mean, Japan and the UK have fairly different legal codes from the US. – Obie 2.0 Mar 17 at 1:51
5

Broadly speaking no. In most legal systems governments (and those acting as agents of the government) are protected by a doctrine known as "Sovereign Immunity". Basically the government can't be sued unless they agree to be allowed to be sued (normally by a law that permits the government to be sued or via a contract).

In most places the police can't be sued because they are protected as agents of the government as long as they are carrying out government policy. The legal system of the more restrictive gun law countries would most likely state that the proper response to feeling that the police are inadequate is through political action such as voting.

In addition many countries such as New Zealand and the UK have compensation systems for the victims of crime. Which would further undermine any claims for compensation for police inaction.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.