Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[10]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[14]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[10]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-10 15:28:28.300
	1	+2016-12-10 15:28:28.0

Caselist.CitesClass[14]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,64 @@
	1	+====Part 1 — The advocacy====
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Plan: The United States ought to eliminate qualified immunity for police officers and institute a mandatory indemnification scheme. ====
	5	+Mandery '94 (Evan J. Mandery, JD Harvard Law School AB Harvard College chairperson of the department of criminal justice and an expert on the death penalty "Qualified Immunity or Absolute Impunity? The Moral Hazards of Extending Qualified Immunity to Lower-Level Public Officials" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1994)
	6	+Part II outlined some of the theoretical reasons why strict liability might be preferred as
	7	+AND
	8	+, the result that most victims of constitutional injuries go uncompensated is indefensible.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====The NC is competitive on two levels:====
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====First, the negative advocates the complete elimination of qualified immunity for police officers which is mutually exclusive with limiting qualified immunity because limiting requires still maintaining some qualified immunity protection. ====
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+====The term limit means to restrict, meaning some amount of the object being limited must still exist, meaning the affirmative may not defend a ban of qualified immunity for police officers. Oxford English Dictionaries. ====
	18	+http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/limit
	19	+a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible
	20	+
	21	+
	22	+====Second, redundancy – a ban ould make the AFF redundant. Policy makers don't do redundant actions a – clogs the already clogged docket b – they want to get home for Christmas, extending the session with two bills won't do that. Functional competition outweighs – it's key to real world education which outweighs because it gives us portables skills.====
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+====Third, the negative competes through net-benefits. All of the criticisms that I make of qualified immunity are criticisms of the AFF and any perm that attempts to preserve any level of qualified immunity protection for police.====
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+====Part 2 - Solvency====
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+====The NC solves for the harms in the AFF on two levels:====
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====First, the affirmative has identified harms caused by the current qualified immunity doctrine and the resulting obstacles for suing individual police officers for violating constitutional rights. The AFF claims to solve by making it easier for plaintiffs to sue individual police officers. Therefore, the negative achieves 100 solvency and has a risk of solving better than the AFF because eliminate qualified immunity protection as an obstacle to suing police officers.====
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====Civil suits in constitutional rights violations are distinctly important in recognizing the importance of individuals who have their rights violated by government officials, even when the financial liability may be addressed by the government. Armacost 89====
	38	+(Barbara E. Armacost 51 Vand. L. Rev. 583 (1998) "Qualified Immunity- Ignorance Excused" J.D. University of Virginia School of Law 1989 M.T.S. Regent College of the University of British Columbia 1984 B.S. University of Virginia 1976 )
	39	+Turning to section 1983 law, I contend that individual damages liability for constitutional violations
	40	+AND
	41	+but through public reaction to re- ported allegations of clear constitutional impropriety.
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====Second, the Affirmative must win that there is a unique benefit to preserving any qualified immunity, like protecting police officers enough to make it feasible to do their jobs. Otherwise, we should completely eliminate qualified immunity, which justifies negating. By imposing a mandatory indemnification scheme, the negative solves for whatever problems qualified immunity is intended to fix with respect to protecting police officers acting in good faith.====
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Part 3 - Reasons to prefer the NC====
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+====Even in the reformed version offered by the Affirmative, the doctrine of qualified immunity is harmful for several reasons:====
	51	+
	52	+
	53	+====First, Requiring police to come to court checks back rights abuses.====
	54	+Mathern '12 (Andrew Mathern. "Federal Civil Rights Lawsuits and Civil Gideon: A Solution to Disproportionate Police Force?" The Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. 2012 — KW, JT)
	55	+"Any effective approach to police accountability should take heed and provide a procedural deterrent
	56	+AND
	57	+plague affected suspects, their communities, and the reputations of police departments."
	58	+
	59	+
	60	+====Second, qualified immunity undermines critical reflection over and improved development of civil rights law. ====
	61	+Hassle '99 (Diana Hassel "Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity" Missouri Law Review. Vot. 64 Winter 1999. http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol64/iss1/9 — KW)
	62	+ "The problem with qualified immunity is not so much that the outcomes are
	63	+AND
	64	+improvements in racial equality while at the same time not encouraging fundamental change."

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-10 15:28:30.33

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Chris Vincent

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Andrews Episcopal BM

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+10

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Law Magnet Gao Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOVDEC - Ban All CP

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Isidore Newman