Qualified immunity is a defense that police officers cannot be sued for misconduct if they were unaware at the time that their conduct was illegal and if there is no previous legal case with similar facts that ruled that officers may not engage in that conduct. Proponents argue that more intense criticism of police will disincentivize officers from doing their jobs resulting in crime rates going up. Opponents argue that police officers should be held more accountable for misconduct.
No, increase the personal liability for misconduct, put them on the bench if there is a complaint and then investigate it thoroughly. There should also be more training and education for police officers before they are allowed to become one.
Officers should receive more rigorous training, thereby lowering the necessity for such an immunity I would advocate for immunity as long as the officer has a history of serving the public and good evidence of his behalf. However if the officer has overwhelming good evidence against him he should be held accountable for his actions.
I do not believe so. If you give those who are supposed to protect the community immunity over the law, then they will take advantage of that and do many heinous crimes that no citizen would ever commit on their own.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.