**Qualified immunity represents a legally hollow tool to protect the police from consequences of their wrongful actions.** Qualified immunity serves as a legal shield that prevents government officials from civil liabilities for violating people’s rights. While harmful in general, the concept becomes particularly significant in cases involving police brutalities. Many police officers have escaped civil lawsuits due to the broad application of qualified immunity. In February 2021, [The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals] (https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-10055.0.pdf) granted qualified immunity to an officer who knowingly lit a civilian on fire. Qualified immunity has a shaky legal background. When affirming the concept, [the U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2020/12/17/493748/promoting-accountability-state-federal-officials-shouldnt-law/) sought to balance civil rights with the protection of civil servants. In their view, qualified immunity would prevent frivolous lawsuits from individuals towards the government. In practice, the balance has failed significantly due to the lack of many unpunished incidents of police brutality. Since its creations, qualified immunity has continued to expand in reach. In 1982, [Harlow v. Fitzgerald](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/) allowed the concept to come into force regardless of the intentions of the officers in the incident. Various courts have since defaulted to these precedents without considering the specific circumstances in granting qualified immunity to police officers. Without qualified immunity, police officers and governments may have more incentives to change their actions. They would have less leeway in civil cases. [The chance of heavy fines](https://www.cato.org/blog/yes-abolishing-qualified-immunity-will-likely-alter-police-behavior?queryID=8f8c2d94ceb2eb3642bdd15e3598b68c) in these cases can serve as a financial incentive for the government to become more mindful in policing. While removing this legal shield would not solve police brutality entirely, it would certainly represent a positive step forward. For these reasons, the United States should abolish qualified immunity.

**TL; DR - Qualified immunity wrongfully protects the often-unlawful actions of public officials in the US.** • The [doctrine of qualified immunity]( https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-legal-practical-moral-failure) provides a loophole in the law such that public officials can escape justice and is particularly true with regard to American police. To live in a functioning society, we must be able to hold those with power to account and this isn't the case sometimes in the United States. • For a country that holds its Constitution in the highest regard, it is ironic to me that they would have such a law, that would allow officers to violate the [Fourth Amendment](https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity--both-sides-of-debate.html) for so many Americans, and suffer no consequences. • Everyone is aware of the ongoing tension between mostly the African American population and the police in America - _qualified immunity_ only exacerbates and increases these tensions. A lack of accountability within law enforcement, can be extremely damaging to victims themselves, as well as their families and the wider community. It would explain why there is so much distrust and anger towards police in many neighbourhoods and raises the question about whether America’s Constitution only protects some of its population. • Just as they brought it in, the _Supreme Court_ can also take it away, so unlike the debate about abolishing the US Constitution for example, this is something which can be dealt with relatively easily. I also like to think this would improve things the divide between law enforcement and the American people.