The conduct of the constabulary: a market-based approach

[PatrickLondon]

@mikecurtis

At the risk of putting words in PatrickLondon ’s mouth…I think the point they’re trying to make (and it’s one that I agree with) is that shifting the financial burden of bad behavior to the perpetrator, doesn’t necessarily fix the problem. Shifting the blame doesn’t fix the problem Fixing the problem, fixes the problem

Yes, exactly, and I’m sorry if I phrased it clumsily. My concern is that it would insert an extra and different layer of incentives and disincentives, and create a separate and distracting set of legal disputations, shifting the focus from “What do this officer and the police authority have to do to make sure this doesn’t happen again” to “What is the precise extent and degree of liability owed by this officer and the police authority” - with the risk that rulings in different cases in different courts would induce different officers to apply their own revised standards in reaction, rather than the employing authority reviewing and applying any necessary changes across the board, overtly and within the bounds of democratic accountability to the general public.

Plus, realistically, the cost of each individual’s coverage would have to be taken on by the employing authority as well as their own collective liability (and I find it hard to believe that the average insurance companies would generously set total premiums at the same level overall as previously). Far better, IMO, to let the financial liability rest with the employer, and let them learn from and apply the consequences in managing the whole system.

[Northern_Piper]

@PatrickLondon

shifting the focus from “What do this officer and the police authority have to do to make sure this doesn’t happen again” to “What is the precise extent and degree of liability owed by this officer and the police authority” - with the risk that rulings in different cases in different courts would induce different officers to apply their own revised standards in reaction, rather than the employing authority reviewing and applying any necessary changes across the board, overtly and within the bounds of democratic accountability to the general public.

Yes, I agree with this. Do you want police policies being set by the elected government, in their perception of the public interest, or by a private company in their perception of their own financial interests?

I’m a member of a regulated profession (lawyer) and am required to keep insurance. However, our Law Society has drawn a very clear line between the purpose of regulation and the purpose of insurance. Insurance is meant to compensate a client for a mistake made by a lawyer, but it is not meant to regulate conduct. That’s for the regulatory part of the Law Society, based on the statue and rules.

The Society emphasises this principle to the point that there is an internal “Chinese wall” between the lawyers who handle discipline, and those who handle the insurance issues. Those are two different issues: one policy/regulatory, and one financial, and the financial issue shouldn’t be a proxy for regulation.