6 ms·

Ideally personally liable.

gota 5y ago
The negative incentive could make finding people to work as law enforcement difficult, though I think an in-built insurance system that all workees contribute to mandatorily works better. If less in damages is awarded than was collected, they could partially return as a proportional bonus to the workers It's not a straightforward issue but I think most would agree the current incentives are skewed towards doing whatever and not being responsible for any damage or cost
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  Insurance that uses the year's bonus as collateral.
- Natsu 5y ago
  I don't know that I want them worried about the cost of doors while on the beat, but I do want the city to pay for that after. Also, I'm way more worried about use of force against pets, they seem awfully trigger happy vs. dogs sometimes.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    I think if they destroy a door, and it's justified, the city should be obligated to pay. If it's found to be unjustified, the officer's malpractice insurance should pay. Also, I think officer's should be required to carry malpractice insurance (similar to doctor's), and qualified immunity should be thrown out. This would give insurers a strong incentive to drive-out the cops that are prone to committing assault, battery, and unnecessary property damage. I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer. Such a scheme would also make it harder for bad officers to move a city or state and continue abusing the public elsewhere. Their insurance premiums would remain too high.
    - Teever 5y ago
      > I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer. They will when they're threatened by a gang of police officers. Malpractice insurance is an important part of police reform but alone I think it will be insufficient. If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick. It's all about aligning incentives and only when one shit-head police officer's corrupt behaviour is detrimental to the group will you see reform. Divide and conquer.
      - e_proxus 5y ago
        > They will when they're threatened by a gang of police officers. At least that's better than normal people having to put up with that and pay for it. Now on to solve the next problem with police...
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Malpractice insurance is an important part of police reform It disagree: (1) Malpractice, by definition, is negligent violation the professional standard of care, i.e., what is routine in the profession; violations of that are by definition not the issue with systemic problems. (2) The actual systemic problems are the kinds of things which are generally categorically uninsurable for very good reasons; intentional, and often—though usually unprosecuted, which is why people are concerned with civil liability—criminal wrongdoing. > If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick. The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in.
        dllthomas 5y ago
        > The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in. Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements. I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response.
  - BackBlast 5y ago
    When you fire a gun, you should 1000% be aware of not just your target but what is behind your target and the potential ramifications of destroying what is behind it. It is completely reasonable to make them keep in mind all the potential and direct effects of their actions. I think it would be beneficial for them to find alternative ways of catching a bad guy than busting down doors. It's a completely unnecessary escalation far more often than not.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      Well, they tried using some robot dog for some of that, but it just got people more worried about it, so I dunno. I agree that I would like to find ways that we could avoid putting people in harms way so that we don't have to play trolley problems choosing how many police or suspects should die.
      - BackBlast 5y ago
        A robot is impersonal. Deescalation is a skill that requires understanding human nature, displays of understanding and empathy, and is most frequently done through talking. But also in patience and not forcing issues at times and places likely to result in a violent confrontation.
        Natsu 5y ago
        I don't think you can realistically de-escalate a lot of cases. Nobody wants to be arrested and sometimes you do need some way to take them in unwillingly. The real question is how we do that without putting people in mortal danger (of either the cops or the person being arrested).
bawolff 5y ago
I think having the police force be liable promotes them having better policies relative to scapgoating one person. After all, its not like the officer went rouge. The problem is police policies not that one individual.
- BackBlast 5y ago
  I agree that the problems are systemic. But behavior is individual. It's quite a reasonable way to fix the systemic issues is to hold every individual accountable for their behavior. There should be investigations in the aftermath to see how much of it was training and the trainers should be similarly sacked/liable, so we can weed out all the garbage in the end.
kazinator 5y ago
That may be a moral ideal, but the practical ideal is to make some entity liable that actually has the capability to cough up the dough. (The moral ideal may be practical if it is entirely successful as a deterrent.)
brutal_chaos_ 5y ago
Yep, except at best we'll probably ever get is local government to pay, which means the community pays for the destruction and the cost of cleaning up after.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > the community pays They should. The community elects the leaders who control the police. The incentives align pretty well.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    Except often the police (via their union) exert control over the leaders :/
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      I agree that it could be difficult, but we need to address it head-on. We have an adversarial situation developing between the public and the police. Solving that will be hard, but one of the first things we need to do is figure out how to put the police back under control of the politicians. And then we can work on getting people to look outside their filter bubble and pay attention to who they are electing.

gota 5y ago

The negative incentive could make finding people to work as law enforcement difficult, though I think an in-built insurance system that all workees contribute to mandatorily works better. If less in damages is awarded than was collected, they could partially return as a proportional bonus to the workers It's not a straightforward issue but I think most would agree the current incentives are skewed towards doing whatever and not being responsible for any damage or cost

0x0nyandesu 5y ago
Insurance that uses the year's bonus as collateral.
Natsu 5y ago
I don't know that I want them worried about the cost of doors while on the beat, but I do want the city to pay for that after. Also, I'm way more worried about use of force against pets, they seem awfully trigger happy vs. dogs sometimes.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I think if they destroy a door, and it's justified, the city should be obligated to pay. If it's found to be unjustified, the officer's malpractice insurance should pay. Also, I think officer's should be required to carry malpractice insurance (similar to doctor's), and qualified immunity should be thrown out. This would give insurers a strong incentive to drive-out the cops that are prone to committing assault, battery, and unnecessary property damage. I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer. Such a scheme would also make it harder for bad officers to move a city or state and continue abusing the public elsewhere. Their insurance premiums would remain too high.
  - Teever 5y ago
    > I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer. They will when they're threatened by a gang of police officers. Malpractice insurance is an important part of police reform but alone I think it will be insufficient. If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick. It's all about aligning incentives and only when one shit-head police officer's corrupt behaviour is detrimental to the group will you see reform. Divide and conquer.
    - e_proxus 5y ago
      > They will when they're threatened by a gang of police officers. At least that's better than normal people having to put up with that and pay for it. Now on to solve the next problem with police...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Malpractice insurance is an important part of police reform It disagree: (1) Malpractice, by definition, is negligent violation the professional standard of care, i.e., what is routine in the profession; violations of that are by definition not the issue with systemic problems. (2) The actual systemic problems are the kinds of things which are generally categorically uninsurable for very good reasons; intentional, and often—though usually unprosecuted, which is why people are concerned with civil liability—criminal wrongdoing. > If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick. The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in.
      - dllthomas 5y ago
        > The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in. Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements. I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response.
- BackBlast 5y ago
  When you fire a gun, you should 1000% be aware of not just your target but what is behind your target and the potential ramifications of destroying what is behind it. It is completely reasonable to make them keep in mind all the potential and direct effects of their actions. I think it would be beneficial for them to find alternative ways of catching a bad guy than busting down doors. It's a completely unnecessary escalation far more often than not.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Well, they tried using some robot dog for some of that, but it just got people more worried about it, so I dunno. I agree that I would like to find ways that we could avoid putting people in harms way so that we don't have to play trolley problems choosing how many police or suspects should die.
    - BackBlast 5y ago
      A robot is impersonal. Deescalation is a skill that requires understanding human nature, displays of understanding and empathy, and is most frequently done through talking. But also in patience and not forcing issues at times and places likely to result in a violent confrontation.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        I don't think you can realistically de-escalate a lot of cases. Nobody wants to be arrested and sometimes you do need some way to take them in unwillingly. The real question is how we do that without putting people in mortal danger (of either the cops or the person being arrested).

bawolff 5y ago

I think having the police force be liable promotes them having better policies relative to scapgoating one person. After all, its not like the officer went rouge. The problem is police policies not that one individual.

BackBlast 5y ago
I agree that the problems are systemic. But behavior is individual. It's quite a reasonable way to fix the systemic issues is to hold every individual accountable for their behavior. There should be investigations in the aftermath to see how much of it was training and the trainers should be similarly sacked/liable, so we can weed out all the garbage in the end.

kazinator 5y ago

That may be a moral ideal, but the practical ideal is to make some entity liable that actually has the capability to cough up the dough. (The moral ideal may be practical if it is entirely successful as a deterrent.)

brutal_chaos_ 5y ago

Yep, except at best we'll probably ever get is local government to pay, which means the community pays for the destruction and the cost of cleaning up after.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> the community pays They should. The community elects the leaders who control the police. The incentives align pretty well.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Except often the police (via their union) exert control over the leaders :/
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I agree that it could be difficult, but we need to address it head-on. We have an adversarial situation developing between the public and the police. Solving that will be hard, but one of the first things we need to do is figure out how to put the police back under control of the politicians. And then we can work on getting people to look outside their filter bubble and pay attention to who they are electing.