• About
  • Archives
  • Contact
  • Join
  • Login
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
The Chicago Thinker
  • Latest
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Analysis
  • Cartoons
  • About
    • Our Story
    • The Masthead
    • Policies
  • Contact
    • Join the Team
    • Contact Us
    • Submissions
    • News Tips
    • Corrections
  • Donate
No Result
View All Result
  • Latest
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Analysis
  • Cartoons
  • About
    • Our Story
    • The Masthead
    • Policies
  • Contact
    • Join the Team
    • Contact Us
    • Submissions
    • News Tips
    • Corrections
  • Donate
No Result
View All Result
The Chicago Thinker
No Result
View All Result

Disqualify QI: Why Conservatives Should Join the Fight Against Qualified Immunity

Jack PfefferkornbyJack Pfefferkorn
October 6, 2020
in Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
1
Disqualify QI: Why Conservatives Should Join the Fight Against Qualified Immunity
1.9k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

The American right, of which I am proudly part, has an unfortunate tendency to reflexively defend law enforcement against all charges of misconduct. I suspect the impulse is an honest attempt to counter the left’s overstated condemnation of the police. But conservatives cannot grant blanket dispensation to state agents while claiming reverence for personal liberty. And even the most reasonable right-wing defense of policing is bound to fall flat under a legal system incapable of punishing malfeasant cops. 

Qualified immunity is a judge-created legal doctrine that shields law enforcement from personal liability for constitutional violations. Under qualified immunity, civil liberties take a backseat to the protection of state actors. This notion should repulse any conservative.

Under qualified immunity, civil liberties take a backseat to the protection of state actors. This notion should repulse any conservative.

Section 1983, our primary federal civil rights statute, gives citizens recourse in federal court when a state actor violates their constitutional rights. In an act of judicial policy-making of the sort conservatives routinely rail against, the Supreme Court decided in 1982 that the statute only applies to “clearly established” rights, thereby creating a new legal doctrine of qualified immunity. Unless citizens whose rights are violated by a state agent can find a case with a near-identical fact pattern in which the violated right was affirmed, qualified immunity immunizes the offending officers from civil suit.

On their website and Twitter page, UnlawfulShield.com documents hundreds of instances in which qualified immunity protected law enforcement from prosecution, even when courts found that a rights violation occurred. In one of the doctrine’s most horrifying applications, qualified immunity shielded a pair of prison guards who locked a naked inmate in a cell covered in feces and raw sewage, without a bed or toilet, for six days. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found a clear violation of the plaintiff’s eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment but, without a similar case on the books, ruled that the defendants could not be held civilly liable for the violation.  

In one stroke, qualified immunity violates two bedrock conservative principles: state accountability and civil liberties. American conservatism roots itself in the idea of a limited state, constricted chiefly by a set of fundamental rights set purposefully outside its reach. Qualified immunity spurns the conservative conception of government by privileging state agents at the expense of individual rights. 

In one stroke, qualified immunity violates two bedrock conservative principles: state accountability and civil liberties … Qualified immunity spurns the conservative conception of government by privileging state agents at the expense of individual rights. 

Faced with this philosophical inconsistency, conservatives often put forth a practical argument: removing qualified immunity would disincentivize necessary policing. Cops might choose not to enter delicate situations or opt against becoming officers in the first place. 

This line of argument misses the mark for a few reasons. For one, there was no apparent shortage of law enforcement before 1982, when the Court created qualified immunity. Moreover, someone who chooses not to become a cop because he or she can’t act with impunity is ill-suited for the profession. We don’t have to claim ACAB to admit that certain cops should not be allowed a badge.

In raising legitimately ambiguous situations, conservatives misunderstand qualified immunity. Qualified immunity deals with whether a civil suit can occur at all; it has no bearing on the subsequent prosecution. Presumably, juries would be sympathetic to an officer in a precarious position and would apply the existing objective reasonableness standard.

Fortunately, we are not without recourse against this deeply harmful legal doctrine. Although the Supreme Court dropped the ball when it refused to reconsider its own invention, Congress has the power to set the record straight. Several representatives, including former Republican Justin Amash, have sponsored bills to end qualified immunity. These bills have garnered support from the left and center but cannot pass unless conservatives reject party politics and join the growing chorus against qualified immunity. And for the sake of our liberties and our professed principles, we ought to.


Tags: civil libertiescriminal justicefeaturedjudicial activismJustin Amashlaw enforcementqualified immunitySupreme Court
Jack Pfefferkorn

Jack Pfefferkorn

Jack Pfefferkorn is a staff writer for the Chicago Thinker. A fourth year at the College, he is majoring in chemistry and economics. He is particularly interested in economic history and Supreme Court jurisprudence. In his free time, Jack enjoys following sports, debating, and reading about American history. Follow him on Twitter @JackPfefferkorn.

Comments 1

  1. Ken Jackson says:
    2 years ago

    Jack thank you for this article. This is the third I’ve read on this site and every one so far has exceeded expectations (and I say this as a life-long liberal). Everyone point you made in this article is similar to the arguments I’ve made as to why we should end QI.

    But I do feel that there is a good reason for conservatives to fight against it — politics. It is a great wedge issue. I do think the law-and-order crowd does have other issues they can still rally around, which I think are more principled than this one, but this seems to resonate well with modern conservatives.

    Jack, you may lean more left than you think — and from me that’s a compliment. 🙂

Get The Thinker in Your Inbox

Trending Articles

  • UChicago’s Casey Mulligan Highlights ‘Tragic and Knowable’ Lockdown Consequences, Warns Against the Seduction of Central Planning

    UChicago’s Casey Mulligan Highlights ‘Tragic and Knowable’ Lockdown Consequences, Warns Against the Seduction of Central Planning

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • BREAKING: UChicago Institute of Politics to Host Anti-White Racial Separatist for Tyre Nichols Event

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • UChicago: A Beacon of Hope in the Sea of Woke

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
The Chicago Thinker

© 2021 The Chicago Thinker

Site Navigation

  • About
  • Archives
  • Contact
  • Join
  • Login

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Latest
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Analysis
  • Cartoons
  • About
    • Our Story
    • The Masthead
    • Policies
  • Contact
    • Join the Team
    • Contact Us
    • Submissions
    • News Tips
    • Corrections
  • Donate

© 2021 The Chicago Thinker