zlacker

[parent] [thread] 9 comments
1. Consul+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-01 00:13:12
How about lawsuits against the police for bad behavior get paid out of their pension fund, instead of by the taxpayer?
replies(1): >>crafti+Y
2. crafti+Y[view] [source] 2020-06-01 00:22:22
>>Consul+(OP)
I REALLY like this. Take it out of the pool of pensions for all cops in that department. Maybe they'll start to police themselves a little.
replies(2): >>toomuc+q1 >>DuskSt+La
◧◩
3. toomuc+q1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 00:26:51
>>crafti+Y
The problem with that is that impacts those who may have no influence on the situation (retirees receiving benefits from the pension plan).

Alternatively, you could require insurance, similar to medical malpractice insurance, that pays out for law enforcement malfeasance. If you’re uninsurable due to your actions (egregious and/or chronic), you’re no longer a cop. The cost to your colleagues (premiums) also goes up because of your behavior.

This takes the financial burden off taxpayers, but still uses economic incentives to encourage the behavior we expect from public servants.

replies(2): >>_bxg1+R2 >>hatboa+Sj
◧◩◪
4. _bxg1+R2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 00:41:39
>>toomuc+q1
> that impacts those who may have no influence on the situation

It puts a strong incentive on those to take responsibility for their coworkers. To cultivate a culture of integrity, through interactions, through hiring and firing, through setting an example for those you lead. Cops love to talk about having each other's backs; let's see them put those words into action where it counts.

replies(1): >>toomuc+c3
◧◩◪◨
5. toomuc+c3[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 00:45:38
>>_bxg1+R2
Retirees are not the coworkers, they are already out of the system. You’re shifting risk from current employees to past employees unless you pursue an insurance model, which is intended to do precisely what you describe: pool and price risk, both individually and collectively, among active law enforcement.
replies(2): >>_bxg1+54 >>remote+Sc
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. _bxg1+54[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 00:56:14
>>toomuc+c3
Past employees likely worked alongside current employees. They certainly placed the group's culture on its trajectory. They have a leg in the game.
◧◩
7. DuskSt+La[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 02:26:17
>>crafti+Y
This creates terrible incentives, though. Are you going to proactively help with a civil rights case if it means your pension disappears?

If the person suing "dies in a random armed robbery, so sad", are you going to put maximum effort into investigating their murder?

If you see your coworker destroying evidence of misconduct, do you look the other way because reporting it costs everyone in the department money?

replies(1): >>Consul+cw
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. remote+Sc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 02:57:23
>>toomuc+c3
I’m okay with retirees suffering if their colleagues are committing murder. They are incentivized to stay connected and provide guidance. At some point someone has to bear the burden. Right now it’s the tax payers, present and future. I would rather it be the police officers past present and future.
◧◩◪
9. hatboa+Sj[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 04:52:56
>>toomuc+q1
I like your idea of malfeasance insurance.

Premiums could be priced in such a way that it takes into account your personal record, to incentivise your own behaviour; your local/metro PD's record, to incentivise them policing each other; and the state's record in an attempt to address systemic and cultural issues.

Your body cam "malfunctioned"? Congratulations, you just increased the insurance premiums for yourself and all your colleagues.

◧◩◪
10. Consul+cw[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 08:16:04
>>DuskSt+La
They already don't help with civil rights cases. You can make the rats not have their pensions impacted.
[go to top]