Comment by barbazoo
Chesterton’s fence cones to mind. I wonder what unintended positive effects the current policy has.
Chesterton’s fence cones to mind. I wonder what unintended positive effects the current policy has.
Is your question what’s the positive effect of an unaccountable and violent police force? In general the effect is continued terrorization of poor and black and brown communities and the entrenchment of the police’s municipal power. This is a “positive” effect only to the worst people who want a hierarchical society where they get to be on top by force.
Qualified immunity is a relatively modern invention by the Supreme Court. The origins were fairly reasonable in the civil rights era, saying in Pierson v. Ray that some Mississippi police officers were not liable for enforcing a state law against assembly which was later ruled to be unconstitutional, which is probably the strongest case for a positive effect.
The negatives started mounting as it was rapidly expanded from the question of whether the action was legal at the time as in the Mississippi case to whether the officer violated clearly-established precedent for the specific actions they made. There really isn’t a positive argument for that better than “the courts invented a doctrine because Congress didn’t set a clean policy”. Because it ties into some hot-button political issues now, we’re unlikely to see improvements for a while but it is interesting to contemplate the alternate timeline where the Markey/Booker/Harris resolution in 2020 actually turned into a law.
Chesterton's fence, as properly applied, should have been considered when granting the immunity we see now.
e.g. I wonder what unintended (or perhaps intended) negative effects the current policy has compared to the previous one.
IMO Chesterton'ing the state of policing in the US results in deep fundamental awkwardness.
Why are police heavily armed and adopting military tactics?
Because of famous encounters with heavily-armed criminals by lightly-equipped cops.
Why are criminals able to be so heavily armed?
Because of treating a "right to bear arms" as semi-sacred. Supposedly in the name of distrust of government.
A heavily-armed citizenry doesn't have to lead to fascism but it can certainly give people great excuses to enable it... (See also how it allows the existence of armed private militias who will talk about "standing by" to assist with certain government actions.)