4 ms·

I think the best solution I've heard is the one where instead of taxpayers paying out for the misdeeds of the police, police are required to carry something lik

by Jgrubb 10y ago

I think the best solution I've heard is the one where instead of taxpayers paying out for the misdeeds of the police, police are required to carry something like malpractice insurance. When these awards are given, they come out of the insurance pool and that officer's cost of carrying the insurance goes up. Repeated offenders are priced out of the market and can't be police without the insurance. Taxpayers don't have to foot this bill anymore. Thoughts?

djKianoosh 10y ago
Curious. Is this how it works for other professions? Like doctors/lawyers/engineers/teachers? Sounds good at first blush.
- vernie 10y ago
  Yes, the term "malpractice insurance" refers specifically to medical professionals.
  - headShrinker 10y ago
    The two words are generally understood. The term might currently only be used by one industry. The term can be used by any industry. Malpractice isn't industry specific nor is insurance.
  - DrScump 10y ago
    In the USA, anyway, malpractice insurance can apply to lawyers as well: http://www.americanbar.org/portals/solo_lawyers/going_solo/malpractice_insurance.html http://www.americanbar.org/portals/solo_lawyers/going_solo/m...
DrScump 10y ago
It's a distinction without a difference -- most such large city governments are self-insuring.
- headShrinker 10y ago
  The difference is a single police officer would have personal responsibility similar to the way any driver is careful not to cause damage to there's on the road. The city simply rolling out for settlements means officers never feel the heat for malpractice
  - DrScump 10y ago
    <The difference is a single police officer would have personal responsibility> You're speaking of private insurance, then. If you were an insurer, would you offer such a policy at a premium low enough for public agencies to justify buying? And even if so, I see a lawsuit risk there: "This agency must have known that Officer Dicey was a ticking time bomb -- they even took out an insurance policy on him!" How do you think your average American jury would react to that?
    - pasquinelli 10y ago
      i think the idea is a police officer would have to carry their own malpractice insurance as a prerequisite to the job. they pay for it because it's mandated.
anonymous_iam 10y ago
Most cities buy insurance to help them endure situations such as this. It turns out that East Cleveland did not obtain any liability insurance that might ordinarily cover them for this. I guess they figured they couldn't afford the insurance (because they're already having serious budget problems).
Analemma_ 10y ago
My honest thoughts? It's a great idea which (like most great ideas regarding police reform) will never, ever happen because of opposition from police unions.
rayiner 10y ago
I think we should do the opposite: ban municipalities taking out insurance for judgments arising out of intentional torts, because that creates a moral hazard that insulates voters from the consequences of their decisions. Voters have a lot of say in their communities' police leadership. In East Cleveland, where this happened, the police chief is directly appointed by the mayor. In many places, sheriffs are directly elected. If voters were on the hook for paying for the negative externalities of the "tough on crime" policies they support, they might make better decisions.
- foota 10y ago
  The problem is that each tax payer is only affected a slight amount such that no one has a strong incentive to force accountability.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  What do you think of http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/10/requirelegalliabilityinsurance.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/10/requirelegalliabilityi...?
- Zigurd 10y ago
  Many of these horrors are individual failures. If you believe it's a minority of cops who do such bad things, making them buy insurance or bonding would wash the thugs out of the system. It would become uneconomical for them to continue. The same with prosecutors and other people in the CJ system: Open them to tort claims, but make them pay up front, by requiring bonding.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  East Cleveland has a tenuous relationship with financial solvency and if GE ever shuts down the facility at Nela Park the municipality will probably be taken into receivership by the state. Source: Grew up in Cleveland.
bmelton 10y ago
I've seen similar thoughts, but where the backing product was the pension fund. In addition to the benefits you already listed, because the pension fund is communal, it encourages police officers to keep their brethren on the up and up, as the results of misconduct are now distributed amongst the entirety of the police force. On the flip side, I worry that it would have the opposite effect of thickening the blue line, as officers are more and more incentivized towards cover up.
- foota 10y ago
  Might turn nasty but you could always reward people that rat on other cops.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    Exempting whistleblowers from the negative effects might be a great way to mitigate the ill effects, but we're not generally great at whistleblower protections.
koolba 10y ago
Have the police individually get policies. That way they have skin in the game to not be a complete fucktard. This way you reward officers that don't have issues and penalize the ones that do. Suddenly transferring a bad officer to make him someone else's problem doesn't work as he wont be able to get "jerk insurance".
millzlane 10y ago
Would we ever exhaust the pool of qualified officers? I like the idea of the taxpayers not footing THIS bill. But would the individual officers be paying out? or the entire department? I'm assuming the officer would be liable for their own insurance.
mmanfrin 10y ago
I think the only way to affect change is to have it tied to pensions, so that there is an internal incentive for them to behave. As it exists, any 'fine' levied on police just gets shuffled over to taxpayers (and an insurance policy would be no different -- just another cost of keeping your children safe).
kafkaesq 10y ago
Thoughts? Exactly the wrong thing to do. Civil penalties will be never be sufficient to deter bad behavior like this. Letting cops (or rent-a-cops) carry "insurance" will even further shield them from the true costs of their action -- and deaden their inborn capacities for empathy and common sense even further, also. Simply put, in egregious and utterly indefensible cases like these, law enforcement officials need to held criminally liable for their actions. That means: jail time; felony convictions (where appropriate); and temporary or (where appropriate) lifetime bans on the privilege of serving in a similar capacity, in either the public or private sphere. And in this case of what happened to Arnold Black -- all of the above (including a lifetime ban) would seem to be entirely appropriate.
- millzlane 10y ago
  >That means: jail time; felony convictions (where appropriate); and temporary or (where appropriate) lifetime bans on the privilege of serving in a similar capacity, in either the public or private sphere.And in this case, all of the above (including a lifetime ban) would seem to be entirely appropriate. Well said. They're citizens working for citizens. They should be shielded no more than a first time offender guilty of ANY violent crime.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    Exactly. Imagine what would happen to you or me if we detained and locked someone in a room for five days. On a similar note, many states have pretty hefty consequences if you leave a pet in a vehicle and it dies. Every once in a while a police officer will leave s service dog in a vehicle and it will die and the police want to exempt themselves from the same consequences...
alasdair_ 10y ago
Just have the police pension fund also act as the insurance pool.
dogma1138 10y ago
And where do you think the money for the insurance will come from? The police is funded via public money, malpractice insurance is one of the major causes why US healthcare is so expensive. Police officers are already paid very low wages compared to what they risk, they already fail to attract high quality individuals as federal law enforcement is usually where you end up if you are both willing to serve and qualified forcing individual officers to carry insurance that can cost them 1000's each year won't help that, and even if it would happen the police unions would just bake it into mandatory raises. Police should be held accountable for their action by the courts not by the insurance companies.
- therein 10y ago
  I think it makes sense for there to be a police malpractice insurance that's priced at a per officer basis. However more decorated officers with more experience, training and less wrongdoing in their career should be insured at a significantly lower cost. This would provide a financial incentive for police stations to be more stringent in terms of recruitment.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    I actually wonder where most police officers end up working, we all have the picture of large police departments like LAPD, CPD or NYPD where one can have a long and distinguished career with medals and awards but I'm leaning on the fact that most police officers in the US are employed by small police and sheriff departments that don't exactly have the same resources as the NYPD. Police, EMT's and Firefighters are underpaid globally, and in the US somewhat especially and the US police has somewhat a long history of potential abuse by the police (tho we do need to take it's size into account), I don't think that what is effectively a tax on police officers would result in any beneficial results. This is not that much different than paying teachers based on standardized test scores which is a policy that to outsiders seems smart but once you dig even a little under the surface you realize how idiotic it is. Malpractice insurance will do nothing but to drive even more people away from law enforcement, it will also actually hinder the investigative and disciplinary process regarding true abuse cases because insurance companies love nothing more than settle. Malpractice insurance for cops will turn any abuse complaint be it true or false into a standardized pay out process just like virtually any other insurance claim out there, yes there will be some investigation by insurance adjusters but like in most cases it would be superficial and just for due diligence and not for the truth. Malpractice insurance makes as much sense as privatizing the police force, the police must be kept public because that whom they serve, they do not protect the state, they do not protect the city, they serve the people and that's what make them different from the military and other law enforcement organizations.

by Jgrubb 10y ago

djKianoosh 10y ago

Curious. Is this how it works for other professions? Like doctors/lawyers/engineers/teachers? Sounds good at first blush.

vernie 10y ago
Yes, the term "malpractice insurance" refers specifically to medical professionals.
- headShrinker 10y ago
  The two words are generally understood. The term might currently only be used by one industry. The term can be used by any industry. Malpractice isn't industry specific nor is insurance.
- DrScump 10y ago
  In the USA, anyway, malpractice insurance can apply to lawyers as well: http://www.americanbar.org/portals/solo_lawyers/going_solo/malpractice_insurance.html http://www.americanbar.org/portals/solo_lawyers/going_solo/m...

DrScump 10y ago

It's a distinction without a difference -- most such large city governments are self-insuring.

headShrinker 10y ago
The difference is a single police officer would have personal responsibility similar to the way any driver is careful not to cause damage to there's on the road. The city simply rolling out for settlements means officers never feel the heat for malpractice
- DrScump 10y ago
  <The difference is a single police officer would have personal responsibility> You're speaking of private insurance, then. If you were an insurer, would you offer such a policy at a premium low enough for public agencies to justify buying? And even if so, I see a lawsuit risk there: "This agency must have known that Officer Dicey was a ticking time bomb -- they even took out an insurance policy on him!" How do you think your average American jury would react to that?
  - pasquinelli 10y ago
    i think the idea is a police officer would have to carry their own malpractice insurance as a prerequisite to the job. they pay for it because it's mandated.

anonymous_iam 10y ago

Most cities buy insurance to help them endure situations such as this. It turns out that East Cleveland did not obtain any liability insurance that might ordinarily cover them for this. I guess they figured they couldn't afford the insurance (because they're already having serious budget problems).

Analemma_ 10y ago

My honest thoughts? It's a great idea which (like most great ideas regarding police reform) will never, ever happen because of opposition from police unions.

rayiner 10y ago

I think we should do the opposite: ban municipalities taking out insurance for judgments arising out of intentional torts, because that creates a moral hazard that insulates voters from the consequences of their decisions. Voters have a lot of say in their communities' police leadership. In East Cleveland, where this happened, the police chief is directly appointed by the mayor. In many places, sheriffs are directly elected. If voters were on the hook for paying for the negative externalities of the "tough on crime" policies they support, they might make better decisions.

foota 10y ago
The problem is that each tax payer is only affected a slight amount such that no one has a strong incentive to force accountability.
ikeboy 10y ago
What do you think of http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/10/requirelegalliabilityinsurance.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/10/requirelegalliabilityi...?
Zigurd 10y ago
Many of these horrors are individual failures. If you believe it's a minority of cops who do such bad things, making them buy insurance or bonding would wash the thugs out of the system. It would become uneconomical for them to continue. The same with prosecutors and other people in the CJ system: Open them to tort claims, but make them pay up front, by requiring bonding.
selimthegrim 10y ago
East Cleveland has a tenuous relationship with financial solvency and if GE ever shuts down the facility at Nela Park the municipality will probably be taken into receivership by the state. Source: Grew up in Cleveland.

bmelton 10y ago

I've seen similar thoughts, but where the backing product was the pension fund. In addition to the benefits you already listed, because the pension fund is communal, it encourages police officers to keep their brethren on the up and up, as the results of misconduct are now distributed amongst the entirety of the police force. On the flip side, I worry that it would have the opposite effect of thickening the blue line, as officers are more and more incentivized towards cover up.

foota 10y ago
Might turn nasty but you could always reward people that rat on other cops.
- bmelton 10y ago
  Exempting whistleblowers from the negative effects might be a great way to mitigate the ill effects, but we're not generally great at whistleblower protections.

koolba 10y ago

Have the police individually get policies. That way they have skin in the game to not be a complete fucktard. This way you reward officers that don't have issues and penalize the ones that do. Suddenly transferring a bad officer to make him someone else's problem doesn't work as he wont be able to get "jerk insurance".

millzlane 10y ago

Would we ever exhaust the pool of qualified officers? I like the idea of the taxpayers not footing THIS bill. But would the individual officers be paying out? or the entire department? I'm assuming the officer would be liable for their own insurance.

mmanfrin 10y ago

I think the only way to affect change is to have it tied to pensions, so that there is an internal incentive for them to behave. As it exists, any 'fine' levied on police just gets shuffled over to taxpayers (and an insurance policy would be no different -- just another cost of keeping your children safe).

kafkaesq 10y ago

Thoughts? Exactly the wrong thing to do. Civil penalties will be never be sufficient to deter bad behavior like this. Letting cops (or rent-a-cops) carry "insurance" will even further shield them from the true costs of their action -- and deaden their inborn capacities for empathy and common sense even further, also. Simply put, in egregious and utterly indefensible cases like these, law enforcement officials need to held criminally liable for their actions. That means: jail time; felony convictions (where appropriate); and temporary or (where appropriate) lifetime bans on the privilege of serving in a similar capacity, in either the public or private sphere. And in this case of what happened to Arnold Black -- all of the above (including a lifetime ban) would seem to be entirely appropriate.

millzlane 10y ago
>That means: jail time; felony convictions (where appropriate); and temporary or (where appropriate) lifetime bans on the privilege of serving in a similar capacity, in either the public or private sphere.And in this case, all of the above (including a lifetime ban) would seem to be entirely appropriate. Well said. They're citizens working for citizens. They should be shielded no more than a first time offender guilty of ANY violent crime.
- jrs235 10y ago
  Exactly. Imagine what would happen to you or me if we detained and locked someone in a room for five days. On a similar note, many states have pretty hefty consequences if you leave a pet in a vehicle and it dies. Every once in a while a police officer will leave s service dog in a vehicle and it will die and the police want to exempt themselves from the same consequences...

alasdair_ 10y ago

Just have the police pension fund also act as the insurance pool.

dogma1138 10y ago

And where do you think the money for the insurance will come from? The police is funded via public money, malpractice insurance is one of the major causes why US healthcare is so expensive. Police officers are already paid very low wages compared to what they risk, they already fail to attract high quality individuals as federal law enforcement is usually where you end up if you are both willing to serve and qualified forcing individual officers to carry insurance that can cost them 1000's each year won't help that, and even if it would happen the police unions would just bake it into mandatory raises. Police should be held accountable for their action by the courts not by the insurance companies.

therein 10y ago
I think it makes sense for there to be a police malpractice insurance that's priced at a per officer basis. However more decorated officers with more experience, training and less wrongdoing in their career should be insured at a significantly lower cost. This would provide a financial incentive for police stations to be more stringent in terms of recruitment.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  I actually wonder where most police officers end up working, we all have the picture of large police departments like LAPD, CPD or NYPD where one can have a long and distinguished career with medals and awards but I'm leaning on the fact that most police officers in the US are employed by small police and sheriff departments that don't exactly have the same resources as the NYPD. Police, EMT's and Firefighters are underpaid globally, and in the US somewhat especially and the US police has somewhat a long history of potential abuse by the police (tho we do need to take it's size into account), I don't think that what is effectively a tax on police officers would result in any beneficial results. This is not that much different than paying teachers based on standardized test scores which is a policy that to outsiders seems smart but once you dig even a little under the surface you realize how idiotic it is. Malpractice insurance will do nothing but to drive even more people away from law enforcement, it will also actually hinder the investigative and disciplinary process regarding true abuse cases because insurance companies love nothing more than settle. Malpractice insurance for cops will turn any abuse complaint be it true or false into a standardized pay out process just like virtually any other insurance claim out there, yes there will be some investigation by insurance adjusters but like in most cases it would be superficial and just for due diligence and not for the truth. Malpractice insurance makes as much sense as privatizing the police force, the police must be kept public because that whom they serve, they do not protect the state, they do not protect the city, they serve the people and that's what make them different from the military and other law enforcement organizations.