An absolute shield: Qualified immunity, police misconduct and black lives matter

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Donathan Brown, Tomaž Onič, Sebastijan Novak, Katja Plemenitaš
{"title":"An absolute shield: Qualified immunity, police misconduct and black lives matter","authors":"Donathan Brown, Tomaž Onič, Sebastijan Novak, Katja Plemenitaš","doi":"10.1177/13582291241249674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Before the global spotlight ascended upon nationwide efforts to codify into law that Black Lives Matter, specifically, police accountability against the use of excessive force against unarmed civilians, qualified immunity has silently flourished throughout America. Created to shield police officers and other government officials for the actions they engage on the job, this long-standing judicial doctrine continues to proliferate a culture of near-zero accountability when police officers engage in misconduct, which for communities of color, oftentimes results in deadly outcomes against unarmed civilians. This article will first revisit the development and legacy of qualified immunity, followed by analyzing its universal defense from police unions, then shifting to a data-rich illustration of disciplinary data highlighting the systemically designed outcomes of qualified immunity via the New York Police Department, before providing concluding thoughts. Ultimately, this article asserts that the retrogressive outcomes of police disciplinary inquiries, especially with respect to communities of color, is operating as designed, whereas efforts to review and revisit its structure and practices threaten a longstanding culture of disregard and near-zero accountability.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241249674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Before the global spotlight ascended upon nationwide efforts to codify into law that Black Lives Matter, specifically, police accountability against the use of excessive force against unarmed civilians, qualified immunity has silently flourished throughout America. Created to shield police officers and other government officials for the actions they engage on the job, this long-standing judicial doctrine continues to proliferate a culture of near-zero accountability when police officers engage in misconduct, which for communities of color, oftentimes results in deadly outcomes against unarmed civilians. This article will first revisit the development and legacy of qualified immunity, followed by analyzing its universal defense from police unions, then shifting to a data-rich illustration of disciplinary data highlighting the systemically designed outcomes of qualified immunity via the New York Police Department, before providing concluding thoughts. Ultimately, this article asserts that the retrogressive outcomes of police disciplinary inquiries, especially with respect to communities of color, is operating as designed, whereas efforts to review and revisit its structure and practices threaten a longstanding culture of disregard and near-zero accountability.
绝对的盾牌合格豁免权、警察不当行为和黑人生命问题
在全美努力将 "黑人生命至上"(Black Lives Matter),特别是警察对手无寸铁的平民过度使用武力的责任编纂成法律成为全球瞩目的焦点之前,合格豁免权已在全美悄然兴起。这一由来已久的司法理论旨在为警察和其他政府官员在工作中的行为提供庇护,但当警察实施不当行为时,这一理论却继续助长了近乎零问责的文化,而对于有色人种社区而言,这种不当行为往往会对手无寸铁的平民造成致命后果。本文将首先重温合格豁免权的发展与传承,然后分析警察工会对其进行的普遍辩护,最后通过纽约警察局丰富的纪律数据说明合格豁免权的系统设计结果,最后提出结论性意见。最后,本文断言,警察纪律调查的倒退结果,尤其是对有色人种社区的倒退结果,是按照设计运行的,而审查和重新审视其结构和做法的努力威胁着长期存在的无视和近乎零问责的文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信