Police Brutality Bonds: The Financial Motive Behind Police Brutality
The death of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black motorist who was pulled over and beaten by police, has once again brought to light the issue of police brutality in the United States. The newly released police video, showing officers dragging and repeatedly striking Nichols, has sparked widespread outrage and reignited calls for systemic change. While there are numerous factors contributing to the persistence of police brutality, one often overlooked driver is the financial incentives that institutions have in perpetuating the problem.
For years, cities across the country have been selling bonds to pay for the costs of lawsuits related to police brutality. These “police brutality bonds” allow cities to defer paying for settlements and judgments against their police departments for acts of violence. In essence, these bonds allow cities to pass on the costs of police brutality to future generations and Wall Street investors.
This practice not only allows cities to avoid paying for the damage caused by police brutality, but it also creates a financial incentive for continued police misconduct. The more lawsuits a city faces, the more it needs to sell bonds to cover the costs, leading to an endless cycle of violence and financialization. In this way, institutions such as banks, insurance companies, and investment funds are profiting off of police brutality and creating a moral hazard that undermines accountability and reform.
The sale of police brutality bonds also has a disparate impact on communities of color, who are disproportionately impacted by police violence. These communities are often the ones that bear the brunt of the financial costs through increased taxes and reduced public services. At the same time, the profits from these bonds accrue to wealthy investors who are largely insulated from the harm caused by police brutality.
This financialization of police brutality has been facilitated by a lack of transparency and accountability in the bond market. Unlike other forms of municipal bonds, there is no public reporting or disclosure requirement for police brutality bonds. This means that there is no way to know how much a city has sold in such bonds or how much it is paying in interest and principal. This lack of transparency also makes it difficult for the public to understand the extent of the problem and to hold cities accountable for their use of these bonds.
The issue of police brutality bonds is not just a theoretical problem. In recent years, several cities have sold substantial amounts of these bonds to cover the costs of lawsuits related to police misconduct. For example, in 2015, the city of Baltimore sold $30 million in police brutality bonds to pay for settlements and judgments against the city’s police department. This was after the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old Black man who died while in police custody, sparked widespread protests and led to multiple lawsuits against the city.
In another example, the city of Chicago sold $1.1 billion in police brutality bonds in 2017 to cover the costs of lawsuits related to police misconduct. This was after the release of a video showing the shooting of Laquan McDonald, a 17-year-old Black teenager, by a Chicago police officer. The video sparked widespread protests and led to numerous lawsuits against the city and its police department.
The sale of police brutality bonds is just one example of how institutions are profiting off of police brutality and contributing to its persistence. Other examples include private prisons, which benefit from the high rate of incarceration in the United States, and military contractors, which profit from the militarization of police departments.
The financialization of police brutality is a major barrier to systemic change and reform. As long as institutions are profiting off of police violence, there will be a powerful financial motive to maintain the status quo and resist change. To truly address police brutality, it is necessary to address the financial incentives.
