Daniel Rose

Tap Room Tuesday, October 1, 2024

This past Tuesday evening the crew once again gathered to talk face to face. We had a quality discussion about qualified immunity. But, we began with learning about one another’s favorite childhood movie. Psycho and The Brave Little Toaster were the two big surprises for me.

The Recap

The question before us was, “Do we need qualified immunity? Is it something that simply opens the door for people in authority to wield unlimited power with no repercussions? If we do need qualified immunity how do we hold public officials accountable for their indiscretions?”

To begin we defined “qualified immunity” this way, “Qualified immunity provides protection from civil lawsuits for law enforcement officers and other public officials. It attempts to balance the need to allow public officials to do their jobs with the need to hold bad actors accountable. (FindLaw)”

Very quickly there was a clear divide between. Almost immediately a couple said we absolutely needed qualified immunity and a couple said that we absolutely did not need it. Those for it argued that people in positions of authority would not be able to do their jobs without it, as they would be in a constant of worry for civil lawsuits for unintended consequences of decisions and actions made while performing their duties. Those who held that we don’t need qualified immunity argued that it creates an environment where abuse is rampant as people in power cannot be held accountable for their bad actions.

When asked how to protect people from the possible bad actors with QI, the argument from the pro-side argued that there are rules that govern QI and as a result when people break the law, QI doesn’t protect them. The con-side argued that people are not really protected as those with power never face the consequences of their actions.

Of particular concern were the issues of presidential immunity. The issues that were raised here were very much rooted in the dysfunction of our government. While Congress ought to be checking the power or the executive and judicial branches they don’t seem to be able to do so. Some argued that this is why QI needs to be eliminated. Others argued that this is means that people need to vote out those who are not doing the job and vote in people who will.

Reflection

As I reflect on the conversation last night I think it highlighted many of the issues that our country as a whole faces. You could say it was a microcosm. We had two sides of an issue where neither side was willing to consider the position of the other. I think of this particularly in light of how QI relates to police officers. We need QI so that police can do their jobs without worrying about being sued in civil court by people who have done reprehensible things. At the same time, we have to ensure that police don’t hide behind QI when they go beyond the scope of their power.

There’s a both/and here. To simply ignore the concerns of one side or the other is to miss the point of the conversation.

I was left at the end of our discussion a little sad that we did not really engage with one another’s ideas.

It seems to me that QI is necessary. Yet, there is also a need to lift those protections when people in authority have abused their position. Some of this is already in place. Perhaps though, it needs to be more explicit and the lines need to be ever more clear.

Next Up

Join us Tuesday, October 8 at 8 pm in the Tap Room Annex for a conversation about American Elections.