by Yanina Caballero
Based on the recent coverage of the media, it appears that police brutality has become a new phenomenon, but it is not. When there is an issue involving police brutality, the person alleging to be a victim of police brutality can file a civil lawsuit under federal or state law. However, in many instances the parties involved opt to settle the issue, especially when there is evidence that the police officer engaged in police brutality. Unfortunately, settlement agreements are not effective in deterring police misconduct.
From 2006 until 2011, governmental entities throughout the United States have paid over $735 million in settlements and judgments for accusations of police brutality. The money used to pay these settlements and lawsuits came from taxpayers, and every year taxpayers end up paying more. In 2009, people in Philadelphia paid $40 million to settle 584 of the 122 police misconduct cases filed against its police department. In 2011, the Oakland Police reported that since 1990 their city paid $74 million to settle 417 lawsuits. In 2014, Chicago paid $84.6 million in fees, settlements, and awards.
Settlements agreements are not new, they have been an option for a long time. Based on the financial benefits associated with settlements, many government entities have opted for them. At the time of the settlement, they may appear to be the best alternative. Despite settling many cases involving police brutality incidents, the rates of incidents have not decreased. In fact, as of May 30, 2015, 385 people had been shot and killed by the police throughout the nation. Evidently expenses associated with settlement agreements are not significant enough to motivate government entities to adopt measures or policies that can help reduce the incidents of police brutality. In police brutality cases, the problem is not that government entities settle, the problem is that they view and treat settlement as the best option while failing to implement or adopt new polices directed at the root of the problem—police brutality.
To avoid continuing wasting taxpayer’s dollars, government entities who opt for settlement agreements should not deem a settlement to be the end of a case. While government entities should have the power to settle a case, they should not stop at that. Government entities should implement additional changes that actually lead to fundamental changes on the system. The goal of governmental entities should not be to just get rid of a case, rather the focus should be on compensating the victim or family members of the victim, and avoiding future incidents of police brutality.
When government entities decide to settle, they should also make a cost benefit analysis of what they can do to avoid future incidents of police brutality. If the police brutality is a result of inappropriate training or antiquated policies, those policies should change. Governmental entities should invest more in giving police officers appropriate training to avoid future incidents of police brutality. If the incident occurred because the police officer decided to abuse his power, then the officers should not be allowed to be on the streets working with the population. Government entities should also invest in other resources to create greater accountability. In the long run, institutional changes could help save money, but more importantly, those policies could help reduce the number of police brutality incidents.
Yanina Caballero is an Articles/Comments Editor at the FIU Law Review. Ms. Caballero can be reached at ycaba004@fiu.edu.