Qualified Immunity

I find that most of what needs to be said in this debate has already been said. Most of what can and will be said in R5 is simply rehashing. Thus, my responses in this round will be very brief. I will include an appeal to the judges at the end of my response to summarize what I have argued for in this debate and why I should win. Thank you.TopicalityWhat I have argued is that Pro cannot limit the qualifications for immunity, because that would change the nature of the debate. Pro argues that, "the only way I can affirm is to change that absoluteness, which is to alter the QI doctrine itself. You cannot limit that which is categorical." Pro can limit QI by allowing citizens to sue police officers that have qualified for immunity. This would reduce the extent in which QI exists and influences society, and thus would be a valid way to affirm the resolution. The claim that Pro made arguing that the only way to affirm the resolution was to limit the qualifications is simply false.Morality v JusticePro argues that I gave no proof for why morality entailed justice in R3, and that I shifted the goalposts by reinterpreting my definition of justice to defeat Pro's rebuttal. I ask the judges, was there any point in the debate when my perspective of justice changed from my R2 definition of fairness, equality, and equity? There is not. Pro made the argument that the value of justice is not fit to evaluate the resolution because "ought" requires moral consideration; not evaluation under justice. I answered this by arguing that any just government would evaluate the resolution under justice; it is morally desirable for governments to evaluate the issue under justice. This is not shifting the goalposts, this is a valid response.Pro's logic here in the second paragraph ignores the argument that I made detailing how the only way for a just government to exist is to have a court system working under justice. Even if the judge accepts the utilitarian moral theory, who better affirms it? I allow a government to exist, and thus protect a society against the evils allowed by a state of nature. Pro's value of morality proves that justice ought to be the value. Self PolicingPro makes a new argument about the ineffectiveness of DOJ. This was never made in any of the previous rounds and thus must be discarded. BOPPro argues that the consequences of civil suits aren't as severe. Thus that civilians still have protections against government and punishments for police officers aren't as bad, resulting in checking government misconduct. This ignores the fact that criminal lawsuits check government corruption just as well as civilian ones. The reasoning for this comes from the burden of proof level involved.Pro argues that civilian lawsuits have a lower burden of proof, thus meaning that more police officers will be successfully sued. But where do these "more" police officers come from? With a criminal lawsuit, the court must know "beyond any doubt" that a policeman was guilty. This means that close to zero police officers are wrongly convicted, and that almost all guilty police officers are convicted (Pro has made no argument that guilty police officers would not be convicted criminally.) If all of the guilty police officers are already convicted in criminal lawsuits, why are there "more" policemen that are successfully sued for damages? The answer is that all of the ones that Pro punishes more than mine in criminal lawsuits are innocent.Now, Pro argues that the "civil conviction" does not contain as extensive punishment as a criminal one. Does this mean that the judges are supposed to accept the wrongful civil conviction of police officers for the reason that the punishment isn't *that* bad? And that this is done for the reason to give protections to civilians to check police misconduct? Nonsense, there is no reason to believe that the DOJ will not prosecute all guilty police officers, thus providing more than adequate deterrence. Any extra deterrence by convicting innocent police officers is madness. As I argued last round, "Policemen risk their lives for the welfare of the communities they serve in. It is unjust to purposely convict innocent policemen on tenuous evidence in order to deter government wrongdoing that is already checked by the DOJ."This argument cannot be accepted by the judges. ImpunityPro argues that legislatures will not allocate funds to misconduct ridden police departments because it would look bad politically. Besides the fact that it would look terrible politically to cut law enforcement funding when crime is one of the top political issues that people campaign on, Pro gives no reason for why criminal lawuits cannot achieve the same affect. Taxation and CharityCharities would compensate all victims because forgetting one family would result in them losing the majority of their funds and thus falling out of existence. Feasibility and FramingPro has never argued that damages would be subtracted from the departments budget for that year. Even if this were true, Pro provides no warrant; a bare assertion. Furthermore, it does not make sense because a politician that would cut law enforcement budget would commit political suicide. Summary and ConclusionI have proven that it is morally desirable for the US to evaluate the judicial policy of QI under justice. Thus, what the US ought to do in this matter is concerned with what better affirms justice. Both sides force taxpayers to pay for criminal lawsuits against police officers. Because both sides contain this issue, judges cannot use this to come to a decision. Pro's side allows for innocent police officers to be civilly convicted in order to deter police misconduct, which is already sucessfully deterred by DOJ criminal lawsuits. This grossly violates justice. Pro's side forces taxpayers be punished for police brutality. Punishing those for a crime that they did not commit grossly violates justice. Every argument that Pro has brought up depends on a false resolution, or on a value of utilitarianism. I have shown that utilitarianism has no place in courts due to the principle of minority rights against majority rule. Thus, my arguments are the only valid ones. Therefore, the judges ought to vote to negate the resolution that the US ought to have limited qualified immunity. Thank you.