3 ms·

Slightly tangential question, but I have seen at least one proposal [1] for "malpractice insurance" for cops. The claim is that this would shift expenses for ba

by papeda 6y ago

Slightly tangential question, but I have seen at least one proposal [1] for "malpractice insurance" for cops. The claim is that this would shift expenses for bad policing settlements from taxpayers to bad actors -- a bad cop attracts suits, creates settlements, pays higher premiums, and perhaps eventually stops being a cop. It has some kind of economic logic, but to the best of my knowledge this has never been implemented anywhere. Has it? [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/make-cops-carry-liability-insurance-private-sector-knows-how-spread-risks https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/make-cops-carry...

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> this would shift expenses for bad policing settlements from taxpayers to bad actors Why wouldn't the taxpayers be expected to pick up the cost in the form of increased pay? Better: police unions indemnifying their employers against convictions.
- mrep 6y ago
  From the article: One objection is that police are already doing a difficult and dangerous job for relatively low pay, and it would be unfair to saddle them with the additional cost of insuring themselves. No problem. We can take that pot of taxpayer money currently being used to pay damage awards for misbehaving cops — $308 million in payouts last year divided by 34,000 uniformed NYPD officers equals nearly $10,000 per cop — and use it to give them an insurance allowance. When very‐ high‐ risk officers see premiums go up, they would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets. That’s fair
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > When very‐ high‐ risk officers see premiums go up, they would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets These policies would almost certainly be bought and negotiated on the union level, as a union benefit. As such, rates would rise for everyone and be passed on to the taxpayer. Indemnification requirements are simpler, and cut out the middle man. If the union then chooses to pass than risk to an insurer, that can be negotiated separately.
therealdrag0 6y ago
There was a planet money episode about this too: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/22/705914833/episode-901-bad-cops-are-expensive https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/22/705914833/epis...

by papeda 6y ago

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> this would shift expenses for bad policing settlements from taxpayers to bad actors Why wouldn't the taxpayers be expected to pick up the cost in the form of increased pay? Better: police unions indemnifying their employers against convictions.

mrep 6y ago
From the article: One objection is that police are already doing a difficult and dangerous job for relatively low pay, and it would be unfair to saddle them with the additional cost of insuring themselves. No problem. We can take that pot of taxpayer money currently being used to pay damage awards for misbehaving cops — $308 million in payouts last year divided by 34,000 uniformed NYPD officers equals nearly $10,000 per cop — and use it to give them an insurance allowance. When very‐ high‐ risk officers see premiums go up, they would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets. That’s fair
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > When very‐ high‐ risk officers see premiums go up, they would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets These policies would almost certainly be bought and negotiated on the union level, as a union benefit. As such, rates would rise for everyone and be passed on to the taxpayer. Indemnification requirements are simpler, and cut out the middle man. If the union then chooses to pass than risk to an insurer, that can be negotiated separately.

therealdrag0 6y ago

There was a planet money episode about this too: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/22/705914833/episode-901-bad-cops-are-expensive https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/22/705914833/epis...