zlacker

While the idea has some merit in making the cost of repeat offenders expensive so that the force polices itself to protect their pensions, it is unfair to penalize those that have no control including officers that have already retired.

I think the best way forward is to force individual officers to carry liability insurance that covers settlements. This will have the effect of pricing out repeat offenders from the job.

>>gav+(OP)
The intent isn’t to stop repeat offenders it’s to encourage culture change through peer pressure. Liability cards don’t have the collective punishment characteristics necessary.

>>gav+(OP)
Penalizing the pension fund would give incentive for police officers to police bad apples and that's exactly what's lacking in cases like the Minneapolis.

Those other 3 officers (and the entire department) need to have skin in the game in that situation.

Yes retired officers should also be "reaping what they sow".

I don't know if would work in practice but there are multiple reasons to recommend it.

edit- just to be clear this would have to be negotiated as part of the union agreement and not something a court could just do.

>>gav+(OP)
> it is unfair to penalize those that have no control including officers that have already retired.

They have more control over the behavior of current police officers than I do.

Believe me, if bad cops start taking money out of the pockets of the rest of the police, actual reform would come much quicker.

Same reason the entire football team has to take a lap when one person is screwing around. That person quickly becomes unpopular.

>>WhatIs+53
A pension is an agreement between me and my employer to give me certain benefits after I retire. The pension fund, established by my employer to pay for my pension, doesn't really enter into it. Its existence is convenient for both of us to a certain extent, but it doesn't matter to me if the fund has a billion dollars or a million dollars. The boss still owes me what he promised either way.

The police pension funds work the same way. If the Minneapolis police pension fund was sued tomorrow and wiped out, the city still owes the police their pensions just the same as before. The money to pay those obligations has to come from somewhere. I suspect that it would come from the city.

>>cool_d+z6
They work in exactly the way that they are negotiated, nothing you've said changes that.

It would absolutely have to be part of the negotiated agreement with the police unions and yes the retired officers of 2040 should be impacted.

>>gav+(OP)
Both of these proposals are going to have worrying knock-on effects. They are both trying to penalize bad actors, instead of trying to incentivize good actors. Do we really make these institutions better by making it harder for "bad" people to work there? Wouldn't it be better to make it easier for "good" people to work there?

I don't have good sound proposals, but bonuses for positive steps might be a good start.

Of course, this is completely different from the idea of QI, which, having worked for the federal government, I can see why it's important. Even if it has been over-applied.

>>gav+(OP)
From what I can tell, it is typically the case that when a prosecutor attempts to prosecute a police officer for misconduct, there is immediate stonewalling and a lack of cooperation from the rest of the police force. Or a mayor tries to push for reform, and the police decides to... stop doing their jobs in response.

While I believe that the "bad apples" among the police force is relatively rare, the fact that the rest of the force is to some degree resisting attempts to root them out makes them complicit in the acts to some degree.

>>gav+(OP)
The union can totally take the money from their pension fund in a way that penalizes the offender the most and the retirees not at all. Let them figure it out, you don't need the extra step of insurance.