Qualified Immunity

I negate the proposition that the US ought to have limited qualified immunity for police officers. I negate this in order to best uphold the value of justice. I choose the value of justice because the subject of qualified immunity is intrinsically a judicial matter, and it is a truism that every judicial court in the world holds or ought to hold perpetuation of justice as its main concern. In this regard, I argue that the judges evaluate the arguments of the debate based on how best they uphold the value of justice. The meaning of justice can be described as fairness, equality, and equity. Qualified immunity doctrine dictates that, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” [1] Note, qualified immunity only protects government officials from civil lawsuits, not criminal ones. “In law, damages are an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury.” [2] In the case of this debate, this would mostly refer to compensation to families and victims of police brutality/negligence. I argue for unlimited qualified immunity for police officers. This means that in all cases in which the police officer in question qualifies for immunity they are immune to civil lawsuits; this right is an absolute. Pro argues for a world in which there would be circumstances in which police officers qualifying for immunity will still have to face civil lawsuits. I find that allowing citizens to sue for damages does not uphold the value of justice, and thus that the judges should vote to negate the resolution. Limiting qualified immunity results in taxpayers paying for police brutality If qualified immunity is limited, this opens the possibility of civil lawsuits for damages to be won. Because police officers indemnify the police department in civil lawsuits, the police department would pay the compensation money to the victim/family of the victim. And because police departments get all of their funds from taxes, the taxpayers will be the ones paying compensation money to victims of police brutality. Taxpayers of the ten cities with the largest police departments collectively paid $1.4 billion in compensation money over the last five years [3]. A study found that taxpayers paid for, “99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement.” [4] Taxation is intrinsically undesirable to citizens because it forcibly confiscates their property. Is it just to punish the taxpayers for police brutality? The basics of justice dictate that those who commit a wrongdoing should bear the punishment. The basics of justice dictate that levying an undeserved punishment is unjust. Thus, limiting qualified immunity is a gross violation to the value of justice and must be negated. Plan to Negate Resolution In the world that I defend—unlimited qualified immunity—there is no way for police officers to be sued for damages if they qualify for immunity. The police officers still face criminal charges, but there is no compensation for victims or their families. Thus I propose compensating victims via private charities. Private charities already fill in many gaps in the criminal justice system effectively such as providing free legal advice to those who can’t afford it, offender and ex-offender rehabilitation, addiction treatment services, free psychological trauma therapy, legal education services, friendship and entertainment to prisoners, etc. A large list is available here [5]. Organizations like the ACLU with a budget of $130 million provide extensive legal services to victims, the National Crime Prevention Council with a budget of $3 million provides crime prevention materials and information, the NAACP with $30 million budget fights legal racial discrimination. Private charities have successfully filled many gaps in the criminal justice system already; and thus there is no reason to believe that victim compensation cannot as well. Keep in mind that this is not a large burden to undertake. My statistic on taxpayers paying $1.4 billion regards police officers that did not qualify for immunity. The only victim compensation that private charities would have to undertake to maintain my plan would be those that Pro seeks to allow to sue for damages. The ability of private charities to fully compensate said victims unquestionable. Summary The topic of the debate is purely a legal one. It concerns how the court system ought to function. Courts function—and ought to function—based off of justice. Social welfare, policy initiatives, etc. are irrelevant to this; Courts function independent of it. Because courts ought to function to best uphold justice, not to support various policies, judges need to evaluate arguments based on whether limiting qualified immunity affirms or negates justice. Limited qualified immunity negates justice, and thus must be negated. [1] https://supreme.justia.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://www.wsj.com... [4] https://papers.ssrn.com... [5] https://charityvillage.com...