By Anonymous

The time has finally come where us adolescents are finally getting our doses. Alas, the time has come where we finally have sure-shot protection against the novel coronavirus. The pace of the entire process in which vaccines have been developed, tested and administered has truly been remarkable and is reflective of this generation’s potential. While we see that our inoculations result in a collective response against the spread of the coronavirus, I personally feel that the meaning of the word ‘immunity’ can also suggest the opposite.

Recently, I watched a movie called Memento, where an insurance investigator with anterograde amnesia chooses to forget the actual course of events that resulted in the death of his wife, so that he could give himself purpose in his own clouded form of reality where vendetta is the ultimate objective. Taking advantage of his own condition to purposely let go of the truth is what eventually causes a partition between himself and his moral compass. To me, the definition of immunity can be extrapolated to that of any persistent form of resistance to anyone or thing that is potentially antagonising. The protagonist’s immunity to the truth was the source of his moral dilemma (which he forgot because of the amnesia), but at the same time he operated with a refined sense of resolve to uncover the events that led to his wife’s murder. 

The Casual Observer team may not be pleased with me boarding this train of thought but I personally believe that the concept of immunity alone can be one to create dissensions, especially from on a moral or ethical standpoint. Rather than the conventional form of immunity which we see in our vaccinations, legal immunity is one such idea that is multifaceted and disputable. In layman’s terms, legal immunity is a status granted to individuals that prevents them from being held accountable in the face of the law. There are many forms in which legal immunity exists. The most common one being where in exchange for information regarding a case in court, individuals (mainly witnesses) are promised to not be prosecuted in court. Legal immunity can also apply to governments and their respective agencies therefore protecting them from lawsuits, unless consented to by the government itself. Other forms include judicial immunity (protects judicial employees over the course of their careers), amnesty law (pardoning individuals of past crimes) and diplomatic immunity ( foreign diplomats are excused from local laws) etc. 

The main purpose of legal immunity as mentioned before, is to extract information from witnesses that tends to strengthen the case of any legal team. Legal immunity serves as an incentive for witnesses to provide testimony that will benefit a prosecutor or defendant attorney. As much as this may benefit the course of law, I personally feel that the prospect of gaining legal immunity stands against the purpose of our constitutional framework. Obtaining crucial information and evidence from a witness may be paramount to issues of national security but should the provision of legal immunity be an option? The purpose of the law is to set a limit that we as citizens cannot trespass so that there is order and a standard set in society. In a way, the law establishes a sense of equality as every individual’s compliance is judged on equal parameters. Providing legal immunity seems to eradicate these parameters by placing individuals above the law. There is a practical way to judge who deserves immunity but in the end, every individual is equally capable of committing a crime. Giving leeway to commit crimes in the future without being subject to punishments in my opinion is rather unusual as not only are individuals free to violate the law, but victims of crimes are devoid of any legal remedy. Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine where public officials are more or less protected from civil suits as they are not held responsible for constitutional violations until and unless a plaintiff clearly conveys that a public official has defied statutory rights. However, the clear establishment of what constitutes a violation of rights is in the grey. If a supposed violation of rights has not been observed in any prior cases then it is very likely that public officials will not be held liable for their actions. The issue of qualified immunity often applies to situations where the notion of police brutality is exercised. A particular case, Baxter vs Bracey  involved two officers releasing their dog to attack Alexander Baxter who had surrendered before the attack took place. While the deployment of the dog was considered to be in violation of Baxter’s fourth amendment rights (as per evidence from prior cases), Baxter’s defense was not able to materialise as no case had pointed out Baxter’s voluntary act of surrender in conjunction with the animal attack. As a result, Baxter’s evidence of there being blatant forms of defiance against his fourth amendment rights was inadmissible in court.

“…I personally feel that the prospect of gaining legal immunity stands against the purpose of our constitutional framework.”

While qualified immunity has served as a shield for the police in a possible shedload of similar cases, there have been situations where the loopholes created by legal immunity have been overcome. The Derek Chauvin trial was one where sentiments to abolish qualified immunity had come into fruition. The ever so vivid and bleak death of George Floyd not only stirred feelings to uproot deep racial conflicts but it has also shed light on the changes that any legal framework should undergo. The thought is rather scary as to how in hindsight, the verdict of the trial could have changed if qualified immunity were to play a role. While the theme is Unity in Immunity, legal immunity is something that I think inhibits the true potential of the law to bring the theme to life. There will be an element of discord as individuals are no longer equals that are governed by the law. If that tradition carries on, then disunity and friction are inevitable. I truly hope that one day the constitutional framework of any country can recognise the repercussions of providing immunity and truly hold individuals accountable for any act that stands against the law. It is only at the expense of others that we are slowly starting to realise the effectiveness of immunity as a legal strategy. The due process of law must ebb and flow for there to be more stability in society and for that to happen, the presence of legal immunity should slowly diminish.