Controversy Over Qualified Immunity in the Police Force, Essay Example

Following the news coverage of police shootings of unarmed individuals, the qualified immunity theory has recently been fiercely challenged. A legal principle known as qualified immunity protects public servants, such as police officers, from being held responsible for damages unless the victim can prove that the official infringed on a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. The Ku Klux Klan Act, a federal statute passed in 1871 to hold public servants accountable for breaching citizens’ rights, is where the doctrine’s origins may be found. However, the Supreme Court essentially changed the law over time, protecting everyone saves the blatantly ignorant or those who wilfully break the law. The Supreme Court has interpreted the qualified immunity concept in a way that makes it all but difficult to hold police personnel liable for harm, even when they violate the rights of civilians. This has to alter law enforcement personnel to the same level of care as other professions.

One of the most prominent examples of how the qualified immunity doctrine has been used to protect police officers from liability is the shooting of Andrew Finch in Wichita, Kansas. In December 2017, Finch was killed by a police officer after someone initiated a fake emergency call to the police, otherwise known as “swatting.” The officer who shot Finch was not charged with any crime, as the district attorney ruled that he was protected by qualified immunity. However, if the Supreme Court were to reverse its interpretation of the qualified immunity doctrine, it would send a strong message to police officers that they are not above the law. In doing so, the court would also embrace a key precept of the medical profession: First, not harm. For instance, Philip B., the “Arizona officer” who killed Daniel S. through shooting, had the words “You’re f*cked” etched onto his police-issued rifle. That should have been a warning sign that he had the disposition for a position demanding sound judgment and the ability to maintain composure under duress.

The officer who shot Finch claimed qualified immunity, and the city argued that the officer’s actions were “reasonable” given the circumstances. The shooting of Andrew Finch highlights the problems with the qualified immunity doctrine. First, the doctrine shields police officers from liability even when they knowingly violate the rights of citizens. Second, the philosophy almost eliminates the possibility of holding police personnel responsible for their acts. In Wichita, the city paid a $2 million settlement to Finch’s family, but the officer who shot him was not charged with any crime. Suing police officers in civil court is the only means to make them answerable for their acts, and doing so is sometimes challenging and expensive. Finally, the doctrine gives police officers a free pass to use excessive force. The officer who killed Finch in Wichita said he did so in self-defence, but the evidence shows there was no danger to the officer’s life.

Police personnel needs to be held accountable for their acts, hence the qualified immunity concept has to be changed. One way to do this is to require police departments to release the names of officers who are involved in shootings. Another way to reform the doctrine is to require police departments to report all uses of force, including deadly force, to a state or federal database. These changes will guarantee that police officers are subject to the same level of care as other professionals and make it simpler to hold them accountable for their acts. For instance, if a doctor kills a patient, the public is generally made aware of it, and the doctor is held accountable. The same should be true for police officers.

Objection and response:

“One argument against reforming the qualified immunity doctrine is that it would make it difficult for police officers to do their job. Police officers are often required to make split-second decisions and should not be second-guessed after the fact. Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability so they can do their job without fear of being sued. For example, if an officer shoots a suspect reaching for a gun, the officer should not be held liable if it turns out that the gun was not loaded. The qualified immunity doctrine allows police officers to make mistakes without fear of being sued.”

However, this argument does not hold up to scrutiny. First, the vast majority of police officers are never sued for their actions. Second, even if an officer is sued, he or she is usually protected by qualified immunity. If a court rules that an officer’s conduct were irrational, the officer loses qualified immunity. In order to be found accountable, the officer must have knowingly infringed a person’s rights.

Third, the qualified immunity doctrine does not absolve police officers from all responsibility. Police officers can still be sued for misconduct and still be charged with a crime. For example, the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was not protected by qualified immunity. The officer was sued for civil rights violations, and he was also indicted on criminal charges. Qualified immunity does not protect police officers from all liability, but it does make it more difficult to hold them accountable.

How to Resolve the Tension

It is necessary to alter the qualified immunity concept to make sure that police officers are held accountable for their conduct. One way to do this is to require police departments to release the names of officers who are involved in shootings. Another way to reform the doctrine is to require police departments to report all uses of force, including deadly force, to a state or federal database. The proposed amendments would simplify holding police officers accountable for their acts and guarantee that they are treated equally with other professions in terms of responsibility. For instance, if a doctor kills a patient, the public is generally made aware of it, and the doctor is held accountable. The same should be true for police officers.

In conclusion, to ensure that police officers are apprehended for their acts, the qualified immunity doctrine must be changed. Police officers should not be able to hide behind the doctrine when they commit misconduct. The suggested reforms would help to make police officers more accountable and held to the same standards of care as other professionals.