Keith Lamont.
Terence Crutcher.
Alton Sterling.
Philando Castile.
If you’re like me, you struggled with a range of emotions last week over senseless displays of police brutality. But as I processed my sadness, disbelief, disgust, sense of helplessness and outrage, one question kept coming to mind:
Why do law enforcement officers continue to get away with murder and violence?
Body cams, increased officer training, improved community relations, external oversight committees, along with the use of independent police investigations and independent prosecutors have all been proposed as solutions for eradicating police misconduct.
Yet, in my opinion, none of these address the real issue: Law enforcement officers can act without regards for the consequences of their behaviors. I don’t believe many are disciplined, fired or prosecuted for their misdeeds.
In other professions, civil litigation with its threats of huge financial verdicts serves to reign in potential abuse and drive out unsavory actors from their fields of employment. But in law enforcement, things are different, and herein lies the root of the problem.
Municipalities shield police officers from civil lawsuits through a process known as indemnification, which serves to make sure officers are not personally responsible for financial settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases.
According to a study published in the New York University Law Review, as a result of indemnification, law enforcement officers rarely suffer the financial consequences of their actions:
“Police officers are virtually always indemnified. Between 2006 and 2011, in forty-four of the country’s largest jurisdictions, officers financially contributed to settlements and judgments in just .41 percent of the approximately 9225 civil rights damages actions resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, and their contributions amounted to just .02 percent of the over $730 million spent by cities, counties, and states in these cases.”
The financial burden of civil judgement falls not on the police, but instead is shouldered by the taxpayers who must pay for the misdeeds of their law officers.
Take the City of Chicago, for instance. Between 2004 and 2014, the city paid out a staggering $521 million to deal with police brutality related lawsuits. Worst yet, the city has nearly 500 lawsuits still pending against it. At the same time, cash-strapped Chicago has considered implementing a half billion dollar increase in property taxes, shutting down public schools and closing fire stations.
With such a crippling price tag, why do local governments shield officers from the financial ramifications of their offensive behavior?
Consider this from the Fordham Urban Law Journal:
“When the city errs on the side of indemnifying every officer, no one complains. The unions are satisfied; they successfully protect their members. The police officers are satisfied; they avoid personal liability for their wrongdoing. The victims, for the most part, are satisfied; they recover, relatively quickly from a deep-pocket municipal defendant that, unlike most police officers, can actually pay the judgment or settlement. There is simply no one with a voice in the process with any interest in disturbing the status quo.”
Not everyone wins, of course. The taxpayers lose. They pay millions of dollars to fund these judgments and settlements. The community loses because this system perpetuates and protects police misconduct. And the victims who care more about principle than money lose because the law gives the city near absolute discretion to defend and pay for police wrongdoing but little incentive to investigate or discipline officers who violate the law.
Our wholesale indemnification of law enforcement officers has created a moral hazard—a lack of incentive to guard against risk when one is protected from its consequences. Simply stated, police are more inclined to engage in reckless behavior when they are financially protected from the consequences.
Contrast this with other professions that hold the public trust. A doctor, for instance, who is repeatedly reckless faces the financial reckoning of his or her actions with ever increasing malpractice rates, and the potential loss of their medical license and subsequent income.
Money is one of the few things that can influence and change behavior. If we truly desire to stem the tide of police abuse, we must hit the bad actors where it hurts—in the pocketbook. An officer would surely think twice about his actions if he knew those actions could make him penniless.
To protect the next Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Alton Sterling or Philando Castile, rogue officers must be made to face the prospect of financial ruin for their actions. We must advocate for state and local governments to stop the widespread indemnification of officers who violate their public duties.
BMWK, what other ways can we use the financial system to create change?