Eh, but on the other hand, the tax payers are the ones who keep voting in governments that do not hold members of the police force accountable (and who hired policemen that do this to begin with). Such is the beauty of democracy: as long as there is no deception involved (and it doesn't seem like in this case, there was), the voters get exactly the government they deserve.

"1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money"

What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

The one affected by brutality would be doubly screwed.

The Police as a whole should be held accountable, and victims should be ensured compensation, they are by all accounts being brutalized by the state, and the state is run with taxpayers money.

Agreeing with the rest though.

> What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

What happens to normal mortals when they can't pay their debts. Are policemen really so much above the law that they don't have to pay their debts either?

The problem is not with the policeman, it would be with the victim that would be unable to receive compensation, if the former defaults.

As someone else said, the police should be required to hold malpractice insurance.

Basically the most reasonable strategy is that the employer which is the public is on the hook for the immediate cost and has the privilege and duty of recovering the money from the guilty.

This insures that the city who is guilty of hiring the miscreant ends up with the onerous duty of collection and the victim is compensated hastily.

>What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

Should a debt ordered by a court due to deliberately taking actions that harm another be treated differently than a debt occurred through a consensual transaction? If so, could the courts be given more power to seize resources (not just money) from the one owing the debt?

There are a lot of things that I would consider immoral to do to recover a debt that results from a consensual transactions that I wouldn't view as immoral to do to recover a debt incurred by criminal actions.

> What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

Malpractice insurance?

>What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

Then you seize their property and sell it until there's enough to cover the settlement. Just like any other debtor. If they don't have enough property, you seize portions of their income.

If their income isn't enough, can you invoke the 13th Amendment (in the US, where most the bad cop stories come from)?

This entire problem's solution already exists with malpractice insurance.

The property owner is at least partly culpable, wouldn't you think?

> 3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions

yes. that. that seems so obvious, but it also never seems to be the way things actually play out.

If you try to make the police financially responsible they will price that into their decision to do that job; there's no way to really separate the public purse.

First, in many places the police are paid more than the market clearing rate for various reasons. So there's room to cut compensation without having shortages in applications.

Second, if officers are forced to seek out indemnification on the open market these policies will be underwritten. Bad risks will be forced off the job through unaffordable policies. Whereas blanket indemnification by the taxpayer has no selection effect at all.

I don't take it as a given that bad police get blanket indemnification. They lose jobs all the time.

Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up.

I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it.

Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.

Indemnification just means that they don't have to pay out civil judgments against them. It doesn't mean they don't lose their jobs, though I'd definitely push back against "all the time" even there.

Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...

My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.

Right, but losing a job is very similar to no longer being able to get an insurance policy that allows service in a jurisdiction, in terms of the costs that will be transferred to the public.

If you had to guess, in what percentage of 1983 (civil rights) cases that a municipality settles or loses do they fire the police officer(s) responsible?

In what percentage of cases would you guess that automobile insurance premiums rise where a driver is found liable for an incident and the insurance company is forced to pay out?

Honestly, I'm gonna go with my edit above. I didn't say that there was no money to be saved, I said that there is no way to stop the public being the payer.

So sure, there's a good possibility that requiring police to carry individual liability insurance would lower costs. The public would still ultimately fund the premiums on that insurance.

Sure there is: As with other professions with potential for high liability, police could be bonded. This would price high-risk individuals out of those positions.

Just like the other reply, you presume that high risk individuals aren't already prevented from taking the positions.