The Qualified Immunity. (Research Paper Sample)

The Qualified Immunity.
Student’s Name
Institution’s Name
Course
Instructor’s Name
Date
The Qualified Immunity.
Abstract
The Qualified Immunity act provides immunity to government officials. This Act prevents them from being held responsible for doing things contrary to the constitutional requirements. This research aims to put the merits and demerits of action to determine whether it is lawful or unlawful. My research methodology involved analyzing several lawsuits involving federal officials. I used these cases to draw a list of the above instances. I, however, did not use all the possibilities that presented this scenario. I had a selection of those that presented the case before a court of law was championing compensation against a government official for personal damages incurred. One that the defendant used this Act against a particular claim. Lastly, those that the judge arrived at a ruling using constitutional regulations or based on the qualified immunity act or both. When I grouped all these, I realized that there was more than one case that involved the raising of the qualified immunity by the defendant from every group. I also put into consideration cases that this Act was brought up against multiple defendants and separated them. My findings indicated that government officials gained untouchability from the judge setting aside the constitutional requirements in several cases.
Table of Contents.
TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u The Title Page. PAGEREF _Toc71134633 \h 1Abstract PAGEREF _Toc71134634 \h 2Table of Contents. PAGEREF _Toc71134635 \h 3Introduction. PAGEREF _Toc71134636 \h 3Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc71134637 \h 4Research Methodology PAGEREF _Toc71134638 \h 9Data Collection Methods. PAGEREF _Toc71134639 \h 10Interviews. PAGEREF _Toc71134640 \h 10Case study PAGEREF _Toc71134641 \h 11Observation PAGEREF _Toc71134642 \h 11Findings PAGEREF _Toc71134643 \h 11Discussion PAGEREF _Toc71134644 \h 13Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc71134645 \h 14References. PAGEREF _Toc71134646 \h 15
Introduction.
The Qualified Immunity act functions in the United States theoretically as protection of government officials against civil lawsuits. This law is bias since the victims who suffer damages do not manage to get compensation, which is their right, as stated by the United States constitution. The Supreme Court has so far given approvals thrice, which all differ for reasons such as it serves as a warning to government officials, it is sourced from the common law of good faith, which acts as payback for prior mistakes. This research tries to identify and discuss the stretches of the Qualified Immunity act, how it affects the judicial system of the United States, its lack of explicit operational boundaries. Its research is also aimed at digging into every citizen's constitutional rights is subject. And how this Act can hinder that. It also tries to answer the questions citizens suffer most from this theoretical law considering arriving at a judgment against a lawsuit. This Act has received lots of criticism because of the general misbehavior by law enforcement agencies. Some people champion its removal, including several judges stating that it is the mandate of Congress to do away with such a backward law. First, put this law into practice in the amendment of the Ku Klux Act back in 1971.
Literature Review
According to Schwartz, this Act is there for those who are either not fit for their jobs or intentionally break the country's laws (Schwartz, 2017). A lot of research conducted on the same has proven that this Act has failed to achieve its goals it was intended. It lacks ground on common law, and the Supreme Court first announced that the government officials had the right to use the qualified immunity back in 1967. Several researchers have tried to disapprove the claims by the courts of law that the qualified immunity is drawn from the common law defenses but that it has its different foundation. It provides officials with a bridge to escape justice once they find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
The Act, also from its position currently, prevents justice for individuals who experience police brutality. Every citizen in the United States has a list of rights entitled t him or her being brutally beaten by the police or any other law enforcement agency for that matter, not among them. However, when such a scenario occurs, the officer or officers involved should be held responsible for that particular matter. But since the scope of the Act provides this protection, individuals might not receive justice. Therefore, this doctrine, in a way, also encourages police brutality, which no one would wish to experience in the first place.
The excessive application of this doctrine always depends on the judge handling the case or a group of judges involved. The court can either determine whether an official in violation gets this immunity or not. In most cases, the civilian individual is at the losing end. This agreement is tried to be arrived at by consideration of several facts in the past similar cases. However, such cases date back to the customary laws in defense that some judges still use as the reference points for arriving at their ruling over a particular topic. The doctrine helps the wrong officials evade their burden feeling that it is legal. Of course, something that a court of law has decided is permitted even if, in some circumstances, it may not be so. The people who suffer the consequences have to abandon the pursuit and adapt to the normal. If assessed closely, this Act, to some extent, reduces the citizen's trust and dependence on the judicial system.
The government does not want to incur losses due to the carelessness of their law enforcers. When officers or an officer is reported with such a case, it is evident that the loss or damage reported will be compensated by the government. Many officers find themselves in this position often; therefore, if the government were to pay for every loss, it would spend a lot. The officers are instead shielded by this law, which is unfair and promotes a dishonest act. The compensation also would encourage many people to file lawsuits against officers even for minor cases or ones initiated by the people leading to such matters.
Despite the endless lists of its negatives, this Act presents some benefits, as some would also argue. These include some government officials' services, which may require one to make very tough choices, such as in the line of defense. When this umbrella is not available, some officers may be reluctant to perform specific actions that brutal but very necessary in a given situation. It would occur since they would be aware that they may lose their jobs, pay a hefty fine and even spend years behind bars. The services provided by these officers are essential to the safety of a nation and, at a point, may require one to move out of the standard line to maintain the normal. It would be considered positive or rather to the benefit of the nation. And so, the Act comes as a rescue for them. It would also discourage citizens from going against or confronting such officers because of their awareness of the results.
The abolishment of this Act could expose countless government officials to several meaningless lawsuits, which may be costly for the cities. People would maneuver small ways into the acquisition of compensation at any spot they notice a loophole. These officers do not have complete protection on violations against the requirements of the constitution. They can, therefore, still be held responsible for some crimes that are open violations. It still opens a window of justice and instills vulnerability to the officials. It may encourage some sanity and the will to do the right thing even when in a powerful position than your prevailing opponent.
Since mistakes are inevitable, the officers are given a narrow door to such errors without facing any legal punishment. When dealing with violators, the officer may at times be forced to use brutality to make the person being arrested comply and concede the arrest. Not all criminals would accept being taken to custody quickly and would show either minor or significant resistance to the officers present. These are the points when such an act comes to the rescue since some of these criminals are very dangerous and can harm the officers themselves. Some of the criminals are murders trying to escape justice. Some are not sane, and such can even kill an officer to try and escape. It makes the Act helpful but only from this point of view.
Several scholars claim that the term formalism goes against the simple definition. Many people for a long time knew that judges could use complex language to avoid exposing the points from which they have based their rulings (Smith, 2017). Justice Antonio claimed the holding up of formalism, saying that that is the only feature that made the government comprise good laws and that made up of men. Constitutional paths of rulings have, in a way, also gone through shifts in the touch of formalist rules.
Starting from the late seventeenth century in the United States judiciary has championed equality amongst all its citizens. It was a reflection of gaining liberation, based on the fact that all men are equal. It also tries to address the issue of a different race that lives within the United States. Despite race, one originates judiciary offers equal rights in terms of what is stated by the constitution that encompasses all citizens (Acevedo 2020). The search for lost dignity might, in a way, reflect the concept of the recent movement in America that states that Black lives matter. This movement campaigns for equal rights...