This sounds like a good idea on paper, but the administration costs of that project would be astronomical, or if its run by volunteers, then data integrity comes into question.
I like the idea of using the insurance system instead. Treat cops like doctors and force them to carry a form of malpractice insurance. If you fuck up, then the bill isnt paid by taxpayers, but by insurance instead, and then your rates go up and eventually you become too expensive to hire. Additionally, it also gives police departments an incentive to hire cops that are less likely to treat the public as a threat to keep insurance costs down.
You think insurance (investigations + collecting payments + paying out claims + profit) would be cheaper than a civilian oversight board (investigations)?
Explain that one to me please. It’s this sort of thinking that causes the US to pay 3 times more for health care than anyone else.
The money for insurance would come out of department budgets or police officer wages, which is basically government money again (you can bet those would be adjusted for the extra insurance cost).
(It’s implied that he was talking about a government agency instead of a commercial one, but technically, nothing he wrote was incompatible with what you wrote.)
I mean, that probably is what he meant (if not an actual Federal government agency independent from the DoJ, which is how I interpreted it). I’m just saying, the way he worded it wouldn’t preclude the idea of the insurance industry doing it instead.
You’re not an idiot; I’m just being excessively clever/pedantic.
This sounds like a good idea on paper, but the administration costs of that project would be astronomical, or if its run by volunteers, then data integrity comes into question.
I like the idea of using the insurance system instead. Treat cops like doctors and force them to carry a form of malpractice insurance. If you fuck up, then the bill isnt paid by taxpayers, but by insurance instead, and then your rates go up and eventually you become too expensive to hire. Additionally, it also gives police departments an incentive to hire cops that are less likely to treat the public as a threat to keep insurance costs down.
You think insurance (investigations + collecting payments + paying out claims + profit) would be cheaper than a civilian oversight board (investigations)?
Explain that one to me please. It’s this sort of thinking that causes the US to pay 3 times more for health care than anyone else.
it’s cheaper for the government
The money for insurance would come out of department budgets or police officer wages, which is basically government money again (you can bet those would be adjusted for the extra insurance cost).
Are insurance company workers not “civilians?”
(It’s implied that he was talking about a government agency instead of a commercial one, but technically, nothing he wrote was incompatible with what you wrote.)
Ah, I misunderstood. I read “Civilian-run” and assumed that meant “community-managed”, Like a Wiki to catalog police-brutality.
I am an idiot sometimes
I mean, that probably is what he meant (if not an actual Federal government agency independent from the DoJ, which is how I interpreted it). I’m just saying, the way he worded it wouldn’t preclude the idea of the insurance industry doing it instead.
You’re not an idiot; I’m just being excessively clever/pedantic.
police don’t have to pay for certain damages they cause. Imo, police oversight boards with firing power are a far better solution.