Police Use of Electrical Weapons - Term Paper Example

?Running Head: Police Use of Electrical Weapons? Police Use of Electrical Weapons? [Institute’s Police Use of Electrical Weapons? Electrical weapons were produced to give police force, corrections, and armed forces workers a substitute to fatal force. They are designed to shortly debilitate, bewilder, holdup, or control an antagonist in a range of circumstances. They have been utilized mostly during ‘on-the-street’ conflicts and suicide interferences, although have as well been used in rebellions, jail disorders, as well as prisoner rescues. Electrical weapons are most frequently utilized when fatal force is not suitable; fatal force is acceptable but smaller force may hold back the attacker; and fatal force is reasonable but its application could create security effects, for instance, damage to passersby or undesirable damage to property as well as atmosphere (MacDonald et al, 2009). Study into electrical technologies has an extended account in the Department of Justice. The Attorney General and the National Science Foundation organized the first forum on the issue during 1972. During 1986, Attorney General of that time convened a subsequent nationwide forum on electrical technologies in reaction to the United States Supreme Court judgment, which restricted the permitted application of lethal force against murderers. Due to the utilization of electricity along with the claim of the weapon being non-fatal, debate has started on particular occurrences concerning the weapon as well as the use of the weapon in general. Basically, debate has been focused on the rationalization of the application of the weapon in some particular occurrences, and, in a number of instances, health issues that are stated to be as a result of the use of the electrical weapon. “Tests conducted by the Cleveland Clinic found that electrical weapon did not interfere with pacemakers and implantable defibrillators. A study conducted by emergency medicine physicians at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center showed no lasting effects of the electrical weapon on healthy test subjects. However, electrical weapon no longer claims the devices are non-lethal, instead saying they are more effective and safer than ‘other use of force’ options” (Bozeman et al, 2009). At present, stun guns - most common type of electrical weapons - are programmed to be triggered in automatic five-second bursts, even though the police officer can discontinue the energy charge on any time by using the security control. The charge can as well be delayed further than five seconds if the trigger is held down constantly. The operative can as well impose recurring shock cycles with every pull of the trigger provided that both barbs stay connected to the subject. The single technological restrain to the number or extent of the “electrical cycles is the life of the battery, which can be ten minutes or more” (Davison, 2009). A recent study showed that the threshold of energy considered necessary to stimulate lethal ‘ventricular fibrillation’ declined noticeably with every consecutive burst of pulses; though, single pulse may give adequate energy to stimulate lethal ‘ventricular fibrillation’ in a number of instances. The threshold for females may be fewer. Even though the stun gun is a programmable tool, the controlling software does not restrict the amount of the ‘bursts of pulses’ as well as the time between bursts as the trigger is held down constantly, “or the number of times the shock cycles can be repeated” (Kroll & Ho, 2009). Therefore, the design does not sufficiently lessen the possibility that the sufferer's heart goes into a fatal ‘ventricular fibrillation’. Critics declare that risk-averse police officers make use of electrical weapons in circumstances where they would have utilized more conventional, less aggressive substitutes, for instance attempting to talk with a spotted suspect. Existing police guiding principle let stun guns to be utilized pre-emptively, “even where the suspect has no weapon” (Davison, 2009). Where initially stun guns were simply utilized when police officers or the public were being in danger with a weapon, at present, electrical weapons may and are being applied with no word of warning to shocked suspects ahead of being detained. During the year 2008, a program on BBC showed traffic police officers shocking a pedestrian by shooting him with a stun gun with no word of warning, ahead of arresting him on doubt of robbery. The suspect had no weapon, was conversing with a passerby, and caused no danger, when police officers came out of a car and shot him with stun guns. The suspect was afterward found to be an entirely innocent pedestrian. The law enforcement agencies said that it is officially recognized to shoot people with stun guns before making an arrest; if they are not supportive. Supporters declare that electrical weapons such as stun guns are more effectual as compared to other methods together with ‘pepper spray’, sticks or other conservative methods of imposing pain, even revolvers, for bringing a suspect ‘down on the ground’ with the least amount of physical effort (MacDonald et al, 2009). Despite the fact that they are not theoretically considered fatal, a number of authorities as well as non-governmental associations question both the level of security offered by the weapon as well as the moral allegations of applying a weapon that a few, for instance divisions of ‘Amnesty International’, claim is cruel. Consequently, ‘Amnesty International’ and other public liberties associations have disputed that a suspension should be put on stun gun application until research can find out a method for them to be securely utilized. ‘Amnesty International’ has recorded more than 401 deaths that took place following the use of stun gun. Law enforcement sources question if the stun gun was the real source of death in those incidents, as many of the deaths took place in individuals with severe ‘medical conditions or severe drug intoxication’, frequently to the level of agitated restlessness. In spite of the rising debate, a study backed by the U.S. Justice Department showed that the mainstream of individuals shot by stun guns from August 2008 to July 2009 had no injury (Human Rights Europe, 2010). A research carried out by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (Human Rights Europe, 2010) revealed that more or less 1500 individuals are subjected to stun gun use, concluded that 99.8 percent of the subjects had either slight wounds, such as scratches and bruises, or nothing at all; whereas two individuals endured wounds severe enough to require hospital care, and two other subjects passed away. Their post-mortem reports showed neither death was associated to the application of a stun gun. References Bozeman, W. P. Hauda, W. E. Heck, J. J. Graham, D. D. Martin, B. P. and Winslow, J. E. (2009). “Safety and Injury Profile of Conducted Electrical Weapons Used by Law Enforcement Officers against Criminal Suspects.” Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 53, issue 4, pp. 480-489. Davison, N. (2009). 'Non-Lethal' Weapons. Palgrave Macmillan. Human Rights Europe. (2010). Anti-Torture Committee Issues Warning on Police Use of Electrical Weapons. Retrieved June 7, 2011: www.humanrightseurope.org/2010/10/anti-torture-committee-issues-warning-on-police-use-of-electrical-weapons/ Kroll, M. W. and Ho. J. D. (2009). TASER® Conducted Electrical Weapons: Physiology, Pathology, and Law. Springer. MacDonald, J. M. Kaminski, R. J. and Smith, M. R. (2009). ‘The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 2268-2274. Read More