> I’m not sure I agree with that. I don’t think a good cop should have his pension harmed because a different cop in some other precinct did wrong.
Quite the opposite. Police are paid tax money to enforce the law and prevent crime, regardless of perpetrator. If they can't do this, they don't deserve the money.
They should be scrutinizing their own ranks first and foremost, as they are granted special privileges (i.e. weapons) that make breaking the law easier and more convenient.
I'd rather just see the bad cop be fired. I feel that if we were to penalize their pension fund, their union and local government would just find some back door to refund the money. Better to just terminate the bad cops and be done with them.
If you look at the top of the thread, you'll see I said "when they commit crimes (which they seem to do often and while on the job) they should go to jail".
But the debate is should there be collective punishment for bad cops or should they be terminated. I favor termination.
One main reason I prefer terminating bad cops vs hitting their pensions is that bad behavior is less of a cost impact to the bad cop than losing their job. A cop does something wrong, maybe it will impact their retirement pension by a small percentage. That's not a big disincentive. Loosing their job, that's a big disincentive.
Another way to go about this is to have cops purchase mandatory insurance. Any bad behavior would be paid by their insurance and if they make too big an error, they become un-insurable and thus can no longer be law enforcement.
Quite the opposite. Police are paid tax money to enforce the law and prevent crime, regardless of perpetrator. If they can't do this, they don't deserve the money.
They should be scrutinizing their own ranks first and foremost, as they are granted special privileges (i.e. weapons) that make breaking the law easier and more convenient.