The main argument against qualified immunity is that it makes it difficult for citizens to hold police officers accountable for their actions. When police officers are protected from civil liability, it means that citizens cannot seek compensation for damages caused by police misconduct. This can lead to a sense of impunity among police officers, who may be more likely to engage in misconduct knowing that they will not be held liable for their actions.

In addition, qualified immunity can also make it difficult for victims of police misconduct to seek justice. When police officers are protected from liability, it means that victims have fewer legal options available to them, making it more difficult to hold officers accountable and get the justice they deserve.

Furthermore, ending qualified immunity is also a matter of racial justice as it disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income communities. This doctrine has been used to protect officers who have engaged in misconduct against communities of color, making it harder for these communities to hold officers accountable for their actions.

In conclusion, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that has been heavily criticized for providing a shield for police officers who engage in misconduct. It makes it difficult for citizens to hold police officers accountable for their actions and can contribute to a sense of impunity among officers. Furthermore, it disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income communities. It is time for this doctrine to be ended, in order to ensure that all citizens have the ability to hold government officials accountable for their actions, and to promote justice and equality for all.

originally posted at: https://www.talkpolicy.net/1156164_it-s-time-we-end-qualified-immunity