Qualified Immunity for Police

Is it a good policy that holds police unaccountable for illegal or immoral acts?   That is in fact what Police Qualified Immunity does.   I believe that most citizens would agree that it is a bad policy. It sends the wrong message.  The police officer ought not to be above the law.   They should set the example of following the law.   They are the representatives of the law.

 So is this really a non-issue?   In America our law enforcement officers shoot and kill over a thousand citizens a year.   From what we see on the news, most victims are of color.   Our European allies’ police officers shoot and kill from zero to ten citizens a year.   In many European nations the police don’t even bring a gun into a non-violent situation.   It remains locked in their vehicle or not issued to them.   I would say that the number of killings by police in our nation, when compared to the nations of Europe, very definitely represents a problem in America.   Every policeman knows that their job is not to be judge, jury and punishment for a crime, but with police qualified immunity, they are rarely held responsible for violating this principle.

 Each criminal assault by a policeman must be brought to trial, the same as a criminal assault by any citizen. And perhaps, a police officer should be held to a higher standard and face stiffer sentencing guidelines because of the badge and gun they wear and the justice system they represent.   “Break the law. Go to jail.”  It matters not what uniform you wear at work.

 I believe that the above is reasonable in the application of criminal law.  Civil lawsuits (financial penalty) are a different matter.   I would not hold the on duty officer financially responsible for their actions.   This seems contrary to my position on criminal liability and perhaps it is.  The problem I see here is that we are a nation of frivolous lawsuits for outrageous amounts.   However, you and I are subjected to that reality, why not the police officer?   Our first responders don’t generally have the financial ability to reimburse the public for any large financial damage suffered as a result of their violent actions.   Take away the officer’s financial immunity and the result will be either a large dollar award resulting in their bankruptcy (no payment for the financial damage done), or liability insurance required of all officers.   This liability in today’s environment would be very costly for the insurer.   The result would be very high premiums.   Either the officer would need an increase in pay to cover this required expense, or the department that hires them would pay their premium.   Either way the ultimate cost is to the taxpayer for the wrongdoing of a police officer.

 So, where do we find justice for the financially harmed by the unlawful actions of a police officer?  The police department and its administrators need to feel the pain, as well as the officer, but ultimately the taxpayer still pays the cost of poor hiring and training of officers.  The annual expense of these officer’s actions must be tracked and posted on the administrative reports of their supervisors and to the press.   Hold those who hire and direct the officers responsible, as well as the “bad apple” and you will ultimately cure the problem.   A police commissioner living under our present system of police qualified immunity, will tend to hire a high school football player or a Special Forces veteran, whose previous training is inflicting human damage, rather than a member of the school choir, whose previous training is to make music?   Let our fire departments hire the brave ex- warriors.

 Cheers, Old Buz         5/17/2021 

iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com