Objective: To create a financial accountability structure that incentivizes better policing practices by ensuring that settlements for police brutality or civil rights violations are paid from police pension funds and/or the mayor’s discretionary budget, rather than from taxpayer funds.
Problem Statement:
Currently, settlements arising from police misconduct, brutality, or civil rights violations are typically paid from general taxpayer revenue. This system creates a disconnect between the actions of police officers and financial accountability. Taxpayers, who are often victims or critics of such misconduct, end up bearing the financial burden, while those responsible for oversight—police departments and city leadership—are shielded from direct fiscal consequences. This structure fails to promote systemic reform, as the entities in charge are not incentivized to address the root causes of misconduct effectively.
Proposal Overview:
We propose that settlement payouts for cases involving police brutality or civil rights violations be drawn from one or both of the following sources:
Police Pension Fund – A percentage of settlement payouts would be deducted from the pension fund of the department or specific officers involved.
Mayor’s Budget – Another portion of the settlements would be allocated from the mayor’s discretionary or operational budget.
This approach would create a more direct link between police actions, leadership oversight, and financial responsibility.
Justification:
Accountability and Incentive for Reform: By tying settlement payments to police pension funds and the mayor’s budget, the system would place financial responsibility on the entities in charge of preventing misconduct. Both police departments and city officials would have a vested interest in minimizing instances of brutality and civil rights violations. Police leadership would be more motivated to implement effective training, accountability measures, and community engagement to reduce misconduct.
Fairness to Taxpayers: Currently, taxpayers are unfairly burdened with the cost of settlements, even when they have no direct influence over police practices. By shifting the financial burden to those responsible for oversight, the proposal ensures a more equitable distribution of consequences.
Incentivizing Internal Oversight: Police officers and their unions would be incentivized to foster a culture of accountability and professionalism, as misconduct would directly impact their financial future. Furthermore, mayors and city leaders would have an increased incentive to address systemic issues within their police departments to avoid budgetary constraints and public scrutiny.
Precedent for Fiscal Responsibility: This proposal aligns with broader goals of fiscal responsibility in governance. Just as financial penalties and liabilities are applied in other professions for negligence or misconduct, this policy ensures that police departments and city governments bear the direct financial costs of their actions.
Conclusion:
Shifting the financial responsibility for police misconduct settlements to the police pension fund and/or mayor’s budget would promote greater accountability within police departments and city leadership. It would create incentives for reform and relieve the unjust burden currently placed on taxpayers. By aligning financial consequences with those responsible for oversight, this proposal encourages more effective policing and better governance, ultimately benefiting both law enforcement and the communities they serve.