Police Pt. 2

One particular source of criticism that many say leads to the seemingly widespread police brutality in the US today is the doctrine of qualified immunity. Essentially, qualified immunity protects law enforcement from all but clear infringements of constitutional rights. Part of the requirements for prosecuting an officer under this doctrine is that they were aware that their actions violated a law. Thus, even in the case of an injustice actually being committed, there is still a chance the courts will not view it as one.

Most of the evidence for clear infringements comes from past cases that victims then employ to prove the actor was aware that what they were doing was unlawful. Even through this brief outline of qualified immunity, it is easy to see how the doctrine can be abused and lead to many acts of brutalization going unprosectued in the justice system. 

It’s also important to consider who has to hold the police accountable for their offenses: the victim. Unless there is a wider form of awareness about a certain act of brutality, the only people who can really try to bring the officers to justice are the people whose rights they allegedly infringed on.

Consider the most common victims of police brutality. They are normally not people with a voice to spread awareness or the resources to navigate the justice system, but rather the most vulnerable or impoverished in society (like racial minorities, for example). The fact that the police might already be brutalizing them or profiling them is an indicator of their stance in America and how society views them. From the start, the police have the upper hand. 

That’s why it’s important that policies are understanding the circumstances of potential victims and giving even more of an advantage to the more powerful person in the interaction. 

I have more to say on this, but I will save it for next week. Until then