Given these conflicting principles, it’s important for us as libertarian conservatives to take a closer look at the issue of qualified immunity, and to consider whether it’s in line with our values. To do this, it’s essential to examine the evidence and data related to qualified immunity, and to consider the impact it has on both public officials and citizens.

One of the key arguments against qualified immunity is that it’s used to protect public officials who have acted negligently, recklessly, or even maliciously. For example, in cases where law enforcement officers have used excessive force or engaged in other forms of misconduct, qualified immunity has been used to shield them from liability, even when their actions have caused serious harm to citizens. This has led many to argue that qualified immunity provides too much protection for public officials and that it’s time for the system to be changed.

This argument is supported by extensive data and evidence. According to a recent study by the Cato Institute, qualified immunity has been used to protect public officials in more than 90% of the cases in which it has been raised, even when those officials have acted in ways that are clearly outside the scope of their authority or in violation of the Constitution.

In addition, there’s evidence that qualified immunity is used to shield public officials from accountability even when their actions have resulted in serious harm to citizens. For example, a study by the American Civil Liberties Union found that, between 2005 and 2014, nearly 1,000 people were killed by law enforcement officers in the United States, but only one of those officers was charged with a crime. This is a clear indication that the current system of qualified immunity is failing to hold public officials accountable for their actions, even when those actions result in serious harm to citizens.

Given these findings, it’s clear that the current system of qualified immunity is in conflict with our principles of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Qualified immunity provides too much protection for public officials, allowing them to act with impunity, even when their actions result in serious harm to citizens. This is not only unjust, but it’s also a threat to our fundamental liberties and freedoms.

It’s important to note that ending qualified immunity does not mean that public officials will be at the mercy of frivolous lawsuits. Rather, it means that they will be held to a higher standard of accountability, and that they will be required to act in a responsible and professional manner when performing their duties. This will help to ensure that public officials are held accountable for their actions, and that the rights of citizens are protected.

In conclusion, as libertarian conservatives, we have a duty to support the end of qualified immunity. This system provides too much protection for public officials, and is in conflict with our principles of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. With extensive data and evidence supporting the need for reform, it’s time for us to take action and to make changes to the current system of qualified immunity, so that public officials are held accountable for their actions, and the rights of citizens are protected. By doing so, we can help to ensure that our law enforcement officers and other public officials are able to perform their duties with integrity, and that the rights of citizens are protected.

Why Conservatives Must Choose Between Supporting the Blue or Individual Rights | Talk Policy