Hacker News Reader

Comment by pstuart | Hacker News Reader

A key problem is that police forces have effectively no incentive to avoid negligent use of force, in that any resulting lawsuits are paid for by the taxpayers.

I propose that police forces must be self-insured, with their pension fund backing the policy.

View on HN

The problems are (1) that they get a special definition of "negligent" and "force" than the rest of us, and (2) that they and prosecutors cover up malfeasance (the blue line); not that the stakes aren't high enough if they are found guilty.

Raising the stakes for a group that already protects its own just increases its incentive to cover up malfeasance.

> (2) that they and prosecutors cover up malfeasance (the blue line);

What's needed is something more systemic: abolish prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors will then have no choice but to pursue these cases or face prosecution themselves.

It also creates incentives to repeal old or broken laws that are used only as leverage against otherwise law abiding citizens.

It's a dramatic change, no doubt, but there's a lot to be said for it.

We simply don't have the prosecutors to litigate every case of lawbreaking; there's a reason discretion exists, and it's not to be nice. And dramatic changes don't happen overnight. We start with the system we've got and try to work towards something more fair in little steps.

> We simply don't have the prosecutors to litigate every case of lawbreaking

Exactly, and that's part of the problem isn't it? You can address this either by hiring more litigators, or reduce illegality to what's truly essential.

The point I'm trying to make is that eliminating prosecutorial discretion creates a different set of incentives whereby the law must be understandable by mere mortals, and eliminates incentives for abuse (the blue line).

I recognize that my suggestion is easier said than done, but the coverup mentality seems to be a full effect anyway so it would be shame to not explore this for that worry alone.

Re (2): I think those are separate issues. You can only cover up so much. The departments need to start seeing the bad cops as a ticking monetary time bomb. Eventually if you abuse enough people someone will get it on camera and that becomes a slam dunk lawsuit.

Re (1): This is a big problem. We need to get rid of the double standard. Whatever rules for use of force the police are playing by they should be at least as restrictive as the rules of engagement that 18yo marines in Afghanistan have to play by. A bad shoot by Joe Average should be a bad shoot when Officer Hotdead does it.

Re: separate issues, that's why I numbered them (1) and (2). I totally agree that increasing transparency in the form of body cameras that can't be disabled really helps make it harder to cover up police abuse.

I'm not sure I agree that cops shouldn't get a double standard vs regular citizens — they spend far more time in dangerous / escalating situations than your average hothead with a gun. If they had no double standard protections, it'd be impossible to hire cops (or the ones you'd find would be too stupid to do the job) due to the legal jeopardy. I agree that military discipline makes police look like sloppy amateurs, but the military has the advantage of military training and discipline. Cops by and large don't have that continuing discipline, even those who are former military.

How about department or squad insurance? If one member is negligent, the entire team pays higher premiums. Put that blue line to work.

There's already a huge problem with police protecting their own when a cop injures, rapes or kills an innocent person.

This just gives everyone involved further incentive to ensure that negligence or malfeasance get covered up.

Or the department / team concerned could, upon identifying an issue, immediately report it thereby reducing the costs associated with someone later blowing the whistle.

One can dream.

If you follow the Amber Guyger case carefully you'll notice that the Dallas Police Chief has a recruitment problem. That officer-involved shooting will be a heavy burden on the departmental budget, and it also became apparent that there is a serious discipline problem in the force. Normal people won't join for the salaries that Dallas can offer, and you can't fire the officers with a disciplinary record because they are already understaffed. There's a vicious circle in operation.

You'd have to start at the other end, impose severe discipline on the officers, and it would be a good idea to introduce proper drug testing, steroid abuse is a serious problem with police officers. In the short term that would exacerbate the recruitment problem, so no easy solutions. Maybe conscription would be viable, if the military can have conscription, why can't the country have mandatory public service. Bring back the miliz!

A form of taxation in the form of labour. How about (gasp) raise taxes and pay competitive salaries?

I worked closely with local government for a 12 years now. This is just a small rural county (15k residents maybe) in the midwest US, so not much more than cows, fields and meth.

I can't think of a single person I worked with and talked about taxes with that wasn't for increasing taxes slightly here. Not too much, but something more than what they have been.

I went to whatever meetings I could, wrote to the newspaper, and every single time I got to the board it was immediately shot down without much of a discussion. It's political suicide that none of them want to try, even the ones who are 75+ years old and have been "wanting to get away from this shit for 25 years." It's a power trip for them.

Instead of increasing taxes, they voted to spend 1 million plus to fix up downtown to get people from outside the county to come in to spend money. Now a lot of those businesses are still failing, younger people keep leaving and I still get shit on for suggesting the idea.

But change doesn't happen overnight... At least, that's what I tell myself anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com