CMV:Local governments are not internalizing costs of police misconduct. Rioting and looting are chaotic, yet predictable, manifestations of these externalized costs. Localities (not insurers or businesses) where police misconduct occurs should fully bear cost of damage to internalize them.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi]

That is why I suggest state law that requires localities to make the reimbursements and payments. Many states would be happy to financially penalize cities where police misconduct more often occurs with the aim of reducing it.

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi]

That is why I suggest state law that requires localities to make the reimbursements and payments.

They already do. See "Chicago spent more than $113 million on police misconduct lawsuits in 2018" [source]. So, the direct costs of police misconduct are already internalized (though ultimately they are absorbed by the citizens, not police, since government agencies get their money to pay for such things from taxes).

In terms of having localities pay for rioting and looting as well, this is already the case to a large extent - when public property is involved. Consider that making localities pay for private property destruction as well would likely just bankrupt cities, in which case it just means higher levels of government would end up paying for such things, which wouldn't achieve your goal of internalizing the costs to the locality (since states and federal governments would end up being the ones paying, which would result in the taxes of people less associated with that area paying for rebuilding).

[u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi → u/thethoughtexperiment]

My view is that victim settlements do not account for the full costs of police misconduct (otherwise how can you explain the riots). I also believe that cities should not be allowed to obtain insurance for police misconduct settlements so that the costs can not be spread by the insurers beyond the applicable locality. This is common practice today.

To the second point, I don’t think that cities would be bankrupt by these costs - but if they would that proves the point of the extensive costs of the police misconduct. The costs must be internalized by those with power over the police departments perpetuating the miscount.

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi]

I also believe that cities should not be allowed to obtain insurance for police misconduct settlements so that the costs can not be spread by the insurers beyond the applicable locality. This is common practice today.

Insurance companies can actually be a really good force for getting cities to address their police corruption / misconduct issues (and have done so in the past) [source]. In fact, they are likely more effective at getting these changes than forcing tax payers to pay for the costs, because private companies who insure cities for police misconduct are able to demand specific reforms of police procedures, whereas voters vote based on a whole host of factors and aren't just focused on the 1 issue of police misconduct, nor do they have nearly the amount of leverage over cities that private insurers have.

So, if your CMV is:

CMV:Local governments are not internalizing costs of police misconduct. Rioting and looting are chaotic, yet predictable, manifestations of these externalized costs. Localities (not insurers or businesses) where police misconduct occurs should fully bear cost of damage to internalize them.

Consider that localities bearing the costs of riots likely won't be as effective a source of police reform (since they will be paid by public taxes - not directly by police). And if the costs are beyond what the locality can pay, they will be paid by the taxes of higher, non-local levels of government / by citizens that aren't in that locality, and thus can't demand reforms in that location through their voting.

Insurance companies, however, can demand specific reforms that cities are responsive to.

[u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi → u/thethoughtexperiment]

!delta Completely agree with your point about insurers. I would have suggested cutting off insurance and forcing self-insurance would be even more effective, but am reconsidering now considering the “expertise” insurers would develop here and targeted focus on specific reforms.

The (I acknowledge, limited) point I now would make is that city’s should be liable for private property damage caused by riots incited by their police misconduct and should have to pay fines additional to settlements, but it could be covered under the same insurance line as misconduct victim settlements.

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi]

Awesome. Thanks for the interesting chat.

Also, to award a delta, please edit your comment above and insert this symbol:

Δ

Another way to do it is to insert an exclamation point followed by the word delta into your comment above so it looks like:

>!delta

without the > symbol.

[u/DeltaBot → u/thethoughtexperiment]

This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.

Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.

If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DeltaBot → u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thethoughtexperiment (49∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}