3 ms·

First, in many places the police are paid more than the market clearing rate for various reasons. So there's room to cut compensation without having shortages i

First, in many places the police are paid more than the market clearing rate for various reasons. So there's room to cut compensation without having shortages in applications. Second, if officers are forced to seek out indemnification on the open market these policies will be underwritten. Bad risks will be forced off the job through unaffordable policies. Whereas blanket indemnification by the taxpayer has no selection effect at all.

maxerickson 9y ago
I don't take it as a given that bad police get blanket indemnification. They lose jobs all the time. Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up. I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it. Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  Indemnification just means that they don't have to pay out civil judgments against them. It doesn't mean they don't lose their jobs, though I'd definitely push back against "all the time" even there. Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe... My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Right, but losing a job is very similar to no longer being able to get an insurance policy that allows service in a jurisdiction, in terms of the costs that will be transferred to the public.
    - bradleyjg 9y ago
      If you had to guess, in what percentage of 1983 (civil rights) cases that a municipality settles or loses do they fire the police officer(s) responsible? In what percentage of cases would you guess that automobile insurance premiums rise where a driver is found liable for an incident and the insurance company is forced to pay out?
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Honestly, I'm gonna go with my edit above. I didn't say that there was no money to be saved, I said that there is no way to stop the public being the payer. So sure, there's a good possibility that requiring police to carry individual liability insurance would lower costs. The public would still ultimately fund the premiums on that insurance.

maxerickson 9y ago

I don't take it as a given that bad police get blanket indemnification. They lose jobs all the time. Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up. I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it. Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.

bradleyjg 9y ago
Indemnification just means that they don't have to pay out civil judgments against them. It doesn't mean they don't lose their jobs, though I'd definitely push back against "all the time" even there. Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe... My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Right, but losing a job is very similar to no longer being able to get an insurance policy that allows service in a jurisdiction, in terms of the costs that will be transferred to the public.
  - bradleyjg 9y ago
    If you had to guess, in what percentage of 1983 (civil rights) cases that a municipality settles or loses do they fire the police officer(s) responsible? In what percentage of cases would you guess that automobile insurance premiums rise where a driver is found liable for an incident and the insurance company is forced to pay out?
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Honestly, I'm gonna go with my edit above. I didn't say that there was no money to be saved, I said that there is no way to stop the public being the payer. So sure, there's a good possibility that requiring police to carry individual liability insurance would lower costs. The public would still ultimately fund the premiums on that insurance.