Which type of immunity is granted to certain officials who perform more general functions?

The correct choice reflects the concept of quasi-judicial immunity, which applies to officials who perform functions that are similar to those of a judge. This immunity is granted to protect these officials from personal liability when acting within the bounds of their official duties. The rationale behind this type of immunity lies in the need to allow those in positions of authority, who are required to make decisions that can affect individuals' rights, to perform their roles without the constant threat of litigation stemming from their judicial-like functions.

Quasi-judicial immunity ensures that officials can operate independently and make difficult decisions without fear of being sued for every action taken in good faith while carrying out their responsibilities. This concept is crucial in maintaining the integrity of functions performed by officials in various departments, such as corrections, where the nature of their work often involves difficult judgment calls regarding discipline, safety, and institutional management.

This type of immunity is different from qualified immunity, which typically applies to police officers and allows them to be shielded from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Similarly, absolute immunity provides complete immunity for certain high-ranking officials, allowing them to act without the risk of a lawsuit. Personal liability, on the other hand,