The principle of Qualified Immunity has been around for a long time, and is reasonable. The application of QI is often two steps from the principle and reasonableness. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.
1967 is not that long of a time. And it was initially created entirely by SCOTUS which does NOT have the Legislative power.
Qualified Immunity has been in place since the 1960’s, from what I’m seeing.
As a matter of function, it’s aim is to reduce court and police workload that would otherwise be spent if a case was allowed to proceed to trial.
Whether or not a principle is reasonable misses the point, I think. Any pronciple (like any tool) can be properly used, or it can be abused. State secret, immunity, firearms, exigenent circumstances piercing 4th amendment. All tools that can used for good, and can also be used for bad.
We are coming into a time (heavy-handed government enabled by governmnet-paid and system-loving court minions) where I am of a mind that immunity for government actors is more likely to be abused than to be used for good. It’s a pointless observation. QI is a judicially created widget. There is nothing can be done to reign it in or control it. The courts will do what the courts will do, and no matter how bad the courts behave, there will bo no correction.