by Dave Soulia, for FTIVT.com

In Vermont, mechanics are required by law to follow strict inspection protocols. Failure to do so can bring not just administrative penalties but also criminal charges. That’s what happened when a car, recently certified safe, suffered a brake failure that killed a driver. Investigators found critical steps—like lifting the car and testing brakes—were skipped. The mechanic was charged with involuntary manslaughter and later pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment.

Medical professionals face similar accountability. Doctors have been prosecuted nationwide for fatal oversights, from prescription errors to missed diagnoses. Vermont law allows both civil and criminal penalties for gross deviations from medical standards.

But when judges, prosecutors, or lawmakers make decisions that result in violent offenders being released to reoffend—or when federal agencies fail to enforce lawful deportation orders—no one in the system faces similar accountability, even when the outcomes are tragically predictable.

Three Cases Raise the Question

In New York City, a Dominican national—ordered removed two years ago—shot a Border Patrol agent in the face during a botched robbery. Federal officials had failed to enforce deportation despite his violent record.

In Vermont, Tovi Rose Mesick, arrested for attempted murder, was released on a 24-hour curfew and weapons ban. Mesick later violated conditions by stockpiling knives and stealing more weapons. Still, a judge re-released Mesick under the same terms.

Also in Vermont, three-time felon James Nickles Jr. was free while facing federal gun charges when he allegedly shot a friend and hid the body.

Each case involves officials making discretionary decisions despite known violent histories. Yet only victims and their families bear the consequences.

What the Data Shows

The risks aren’t theoretical. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 44% of prisoners released in 2005 were rearrested within the first year. Over nine years, that figure climbed to 83%, with nearly 50% arrested for a new violent or property crime. Among violent offenders, 21% were rearrested for another violent crime within three years, and more than 28% by year nine.

Federal data on violent offenders mirrors this trend. Over eight years, 55% of violent federal offenders were rearrested, and 26.7% faced charges for assault. These risks are not hidden—they are well-documented and widely acknowledged within the justice system.

Mechanics and Doctors Are Held Accountable. Why Not Judges?

Under Vermont law (13 V.S.A. § 1025), criminal negligence occurs when someone fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk—a “gross deviation” from reasonable care. In the Rutland case, prosecutors argued a proper inspection would have exposed the corroded brake line and prevented the crash.

But Vermont judges, prosecutors, and legislators face no comparable liability. Judicial and prosecutorial immunity shields them from civil and criminal accountability for decisions made in their roles. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies.

The result: a mechanic or doctor can go to jail for failing to follow professional protocols. Judges releasing known violent offenders—or agencies ignoring deportation orders—face no consequences when victims suffer.

Critics also note the irony of holding lower-paid professionals to higher standards. Vermont mechanics, earning a fraction of what judges and prosecutors make, can be criminally prosecuted for oversights in inspections. Yet judges and prosecutors—armed with vast public resources and data—bear no legal consequences when their discretionary decisions lead to predictable tragedies. Doctors, whose salaries are more comparable to the legal profession, still face criminal charges for negligence.

Why Courts Walk Free: Legal Shields for Public Officials

Judicial immunity (Mireles v. Waco) and prosecutorial immunity (Imbler v. Pachtman) arose from federal court rulings, not statutes. They insulate officials from lawsuits and criminal prosecution for official acts, even if carried out in error or bad faith.

Legislative immunity comes from the U.S. Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause and Vermont’s Article 14. But this protection covers only “words spoken in debate”—not the consequences of laws enacted. There’s no constitutional language shielding lawmakers from accountability for how their laws play out.

Sovereign immunity further protects Vermont’s agencies, except where the legislature has waived it in the Vermont Tort Claims Act. Even then, exceptions for “discretionary acts” leave most decisions insulated.

Could Vermont Hold Officials Accountable?

Advocates argue Vermont could legislate new standards holding public officials criminally responsible when discretionary decisions cause avoidable deaths. Rather than creating new oversight structures, they suggest simply expanding existing statutes on negligent homicide and aiding violent offenses.

For example, Vermont could add language holding judges and prosecutors liable when releasing a person with a documented history of violence leads foreseeably to a new violent felony. Similarly, lawmakers who enact policies—such as blanket bail reforms—that enable such outcomes could be included where gross negligence is proven. Supporters say this would give prosecutors the same charging authority they already use for mechanics and doctors, creating parity across professions.

• Judges and prosecutors could face liability for releasing violent offenders in gross disregard of risk.
• Lawmakers could be held accountable when reforms like bail elimination foreseeably enable repeat violent offenders to reoffend.

This wouldn’t affect their freedom to debate policy—protected under Vermont’s Constitution—but would apply to the real-world effects of their enacted laws.

Opponents warn such measures might chill judicial decision-making and legislative reform. Supporters counter that everyone else already operates under such stakes every day.

For Now, the Law Remains Unequal

Reform won’t come easily. Immunities are deeply embedded in legal precedent, and efforts to limit them face strong institutional resistance. But advocates insist the issue deserves attention. Vermont holds everyone accountable when their decisions harm the public. But for judges, prosecutors, and legislators, no such standard exists—leaving victims and their families to pay the price.

Until laws change, that double standard remains firmly in place.