zlacker

>>miles+(OP)
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...

>>papeda+9r
> 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.

>>JumpCr+jA
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