Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

The resolution of this debate can only be affirmed via government legislation. This is because the status of legal immunity is intrinsically government granted: the conditions in which one can qualify for immunity, to whom it is granted or repealed, or to what extent it is expanded or limited is entirely up to government discretion. I argue that all autonomous entities ought to act on a utilitarian basis: meaning that entities ought to act in ways that bring about overall good. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. This is because every sentient being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (pleasure) and minimize undesirable states (suffering). If I have a cramp that is causing me a negative mental state—in this instance: pain—I naturally seek to alleviate it, and do things that would stop the cramp so that I end that negative mental state. Although don’t *have* to act in this way, promoting positive mental states and suppressing negative mental states is still how I ought to act based on the nature of sentience and desirability. It is simply a truism, in and of itself. Without suffering, morality could not exist. What is something immoral you can do to a rock? Nothing, as it has no autonomy to violate nor pain to undergo. Empathy is also a contingent part of morality, for the pain that other beings feel is an objectively bad thing. Thus, since we know that other sentient beings face the same fundamental principle as us, we also seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize their suffering. That is why saving someone’s life at no substantial risk to your own is a morally good thing to do. Because it maximizes the overall well being of sentient beings. This is also why killing someone for no reason is a morally wrong thing to do since it causes large amounts of suffering (pain in the act, grief of loved ones, violation of autonomy because the person wants to live) with no outweighing positives.Because morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether an autonomous entity should or should not do something—for example, Mad Dog Derrick should not bully Little Leone because it causes Leone significant physical and emotional suffering while giving Derrick only superficial entertainment, thus morality determines that autonomous entity of Mad Dog Derrick should not bully Little Leone—morality, based on the established system of utilitarianism, can and should be used to determine whether to affirm or negate the proposition of whether the US ought to limit the qualified immunity of police officers. Since the government is an autonomous entity, it ought to act based on utilitarian principles. This is the framework by which the resolution ought to be affirmed or negated. Many kinds of government officials require protection from suits for damage, and are thus awarded immunity. People like the President of the United States are given absolute immunity from lawsuits regarding civil damages because officials would have to spend time and resources defending themselves against the lawsuits, hindering the ability of the official to perform their duty. The status of qualified immunity was brought about in the Supreme Court case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald. It established that certain “government officials are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” [1] This seeks to exclude “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” [2] The Court argues that a reasonable official would know the established law regarding the acts they can and cannot do. Thus, if a lawsuit is brought against a law enforcement official, the judge has to determine whether there was or wasn’t a law regarding the official’s conduct when the contended crime was committed. If there was a law the official would be declared as acting unreasonably since a reasonable official should have known (and thus followed) the law, and thus does not qualify for immunity. If there was not a law regarding the alleged conduct, then the law enforcement official is declared as acting reasonably and qualifies for immunity. Again following the purpose of immunity: to allow an official to perform their duty without hindrance, lawsuits are dismissed based on summary judgement. Meaning that the judge can dismiss a lawsuit if the policeman is declared as acting “reasonably,” thus stopping an actual trial from taking place and negating hindrance. A fundamental problem arises in this concept, in the case when there is a confliction of facts between the police officer and the civilian. For example, in the contentious shooting of the unarmed Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson there were two versions of the facts: the witnesses saying that Darren Wilson pulled Brown into the car and Brown was trying to struggle away, and the other by the officer in which Brown attacked Wilson and attempted to take his firearm. There is a confliction of facts in that witnesses say that Brown raised his hands above his head in surrender, while Wilson says that Brown charged him, reaching into his pocket. When a confliction of facts is present, a jury is called in to resolve the facts, and, based on that resolution the lawsuit can be dismissed under qualified immunity. It is important to note that any positive impacts that qualified immunity brings are negated at this stage due to witness testimony, evidence procuration and evaluation that would take up time and resources and thus hinder the ability of police officers to do their job. The problem though, that resolution by jury poses in excessive force cases is that the jury has to determine whether the force taken by the police officer was reasonable given the circumstances while the judge has to determine whether the police officer acted reasonably given the existence of a law making the conduct illegal. So, for example in the Michael Brown case—here disregarding the particular version of events accepted for sake of the example since both would suffice—the jury could have decided that Darren Wilson used excessive force given the circumstances while the judge determined that in the version of events in which the jury accepted (and declared excessive), Darren Wilson acted reasonably given that Brown’s conduct followed his training and police protocol in making his decision. Since the judge determined that Brown acted reasonably, he can dismiss the case and the police officer is never given the punishment for excessive force. Qualified immunity thus becomes problematic because it allows police officers determined to have acted excessively to escape indictment. More simply, officers that act on circumstances they perceive (or claim to perceive) according to statutory law, yet are found to have used excessive force get to escape liability. This is a large impact for the affirmative side given the importance of public trust in law enforcement. If police are allowed to exercise brutality and get away with it, public trust is harmed, especially in the current society in which police brutality cases draw large media attention. This is problematic because legitimacy—especially legitimacy in the legal realm—has been found to be one of the most important factors in fostering law compliance and police cooperation. One study in New York concluded that, “Cooperation increases not only when the public views the police as effective in controlling crime and maintaining social order, but also when citizens see the police as legitimate authorities who are entitled to be obeyed. Such legitimacy judgments, in turn, are shaped by public views about procedural justice—the fairness of the processes the police use when dealing with members of the public.” [3] The study focused on law compliance such as where you park your car, how you dispose of trash, speeding or breaking traffic laws, making too much noise at night, not buying stolen items on the street, not stealing from stores or restaurants, and not using illegal drugs. As well as police cooperation of calling the police to report a crime that was occurring, helping the police to find a criminal, reporting suspicious activity to the police, volunteering time to help the police, patrolling the streets with others, and attending community police meetings about crime. The public seeing legitimacy in the police *substantially* effects all of these. Because qualified immunity intrinsically allows for police officers to escape accountability, this hurts the public’s perception of legitimacy in the police force, which has a negative effect on law compliance and police cooperation. Also, in any case where there are conflicting versions of facts, any positive effects of qualified immunity are not present. Thus, I affirm the proposition that qualified immunity ought to be limited. By the way, this reminds me: when you’re looking for a 31-foot ladder, avoid Werner. Do yourself a favor and get a DiWalt ladder. And I’m not being paid to say that, I’m just a fan. A fan, and a very happy customer. Peace and Love [1] https://supreme.justia.com... [2] https://supreme.justia.com... [3] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...