Is It Time to End Qualified Immunity for Cops?

How does one balance two important, though at times competing, public interests? In this case, it’s the need to hold public officials accountable versus the need to shield those officials from harassment and legal liability. In 1967, the US Supreme Court lay the foundations of an answer during a case involving two police officers, sued over civil rights violations carried out at a segregated bus stop in Jackson, Mississippi. The court effectively ruled that if unconstitutional arrests were made in good faith and with probable cause, officers then enjoyed a degree of legal immunity. That case then served as bedrock for a legal doctrine that later came to be known as “qualified immunity;” a concept that effectively provides government officials with immunity from civil suits in certain circumstances. In 1982, the court went further, codifying qualified immunity for officials and rendering subjective intent of the official immaterial. In other words, whether or not a defendant was acting in good faith was effectively considered irrelevant. Under the revised doctrine, cases could proceed to trial only when there was a clear violation of “established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Since then, critics have argued that this doctrine stands as a central barrier to substantive police reform, allowing officers to more easily to kill or injure with impunity. But advocates say it’s a necessary protection, shielding police officers – who are tasked with making split-second life-and-death decisions – from bankruptcy and vindictive personal lawsuits. In this context, we debate this question: Is It Time to End Qualified Immunity for Cops? Arguing "NO" John G. Malcolm, Vice President at the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government, director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow. He served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division from 2001 to 2004, and was a graduate of Harvard Law School, with a bachelor’s degree in economics from Columbia College. Arguing "YES" Anya Bidwell, Institute for Justice Attorney and its Elfie Gallun Fellow in Freedom and the Constitution. Anya Bidwell is an attorney with the Institute for Justice and one of the leaders of the Immunity and Accountability project. Through this project, Anya works to promote judicial engagement and ensure that government officials are held to account when they violate individuals’ constitutional rights. She earned her law degree with honors from the University of Texas, where she worked as a student attorney at the United States Supreme Court Clinic. Prior to entering law school, Anya received a master’s degree in Global Policy Studies, also from the University of Texas, and wrote a thesis on asymmetric warfare. #iq2us #opentodebate #debate #qualifiedimmunity #policereform #police #adamliptak #johnmalcom #anyabidwell #johndonvan #heritage #instituteforjustice #constitution =================================== Subscribe:    / @opentodebateorg   Official site: https://opentodebate.org/ Open to Debate Twitter:   / opentodebateorg   Open to Debate Facebook:   / beopentodebate   =================================== ~-~~-~~~-~~-~ Please watch: "Unresolved: The Iran Threat"    • Unresolved: The Iran Threat   ~-~~-~~~-~~-~