Use of Force Policy in New Jersey - Essay Example

? Use of force policy in New Jersey Law Harris Kamran Harris Kamran Law Critique 4 January Use of force policy in New Jersey The policy, issued by the Attorney General of New Jersey, regulates the use of force by the police in the state by determining the type of force used, the manner in which it can be used, and the situations in which it can be used (Use of force, 2000). This paper is an evaluation of the force policy currently applicable in New Jersey. It will begin by describing the force policy, which can be divided into two parts; the policy governing the use of lethal force, and the policy governing the use of non-lethal force. It will then evaluate the policy by presenting the advantages and the disadvantages of the policy, and end by submitting some recommendations on the measures which can be used to improve the policy for the law enforcement officers. For the use of force in general, be it lethal or non-lethal, the policy states certain ground points that need to be followed by the police department. These four points include the use of force only by authorized and certified police officials, the use of force only when appropriate and required, the appropriate and reasonable use of force both in intensity and type, and the use of force only to attain lawful or legal ends (Use of force, 2000). Furthermore, the policy defines these lawful ends, in general, as any of the following four situations: when the officer is confronted with resistance directed at himself or others; when there is application of force against the officer or a third party, which could be another officer or an innocent bystander; when there is a threat of damage to property; or when the officer needs to make other legal ends possible, such as making an arrest (Use of force, 2000). For the use of deadly force, the parameters are further defined. Deadly force can be used only when the officer believes the criminal will cause death or serious bodily harm to the officer or a third party and when there are no other methods of stopping him, or in cases of an escape of such a criminal who has been charged with causing serious bodily harm or killing someone, and who the officer has reasonable belief will cause such harm if he succeeds in escaping (Use of force, 2000). Again, deadly force should only be used if there are no other options available and no innocent bystanders are in the danger of being hurt (Use of force, 2000). In 2009 (Hester, 2010), the Attorney General, on the basis of the recommendations and findings of his advisory committee on the use of force policy (Use of force, 2000), introduced the concept and the use of non-lethal weapons or force in police action in the state of New Jersey. This policy concerned mainly with the use of stun guns by police officers (Hester, 2009), although others measures of non-lethal force such as the use of rubber bullets, baton, foam, pressurized water, and other such devices does constitute non-lethal force (Capstick, 2001). There are two versions of the policy; the original policy, issued in 2009, and a revised version, issued in 2010 (Hester, 2010). The revised version is currently in place (Hester, 2010). The use of non-lethal force does not replace the use of lethal force; it helps merely in reducing the number of incidents in which the police had to resort to lethal force in the absence of any alternative measures (Hester, 2009). Similarly, there are laws defining the use of such force just as there are for lethal force. The use of stun guns is the most common non-lethal force employed by the police (Hester, 2009). According to the old version of the policy, the police could only use this force against those deemed mentally ill or disturbed who were posing imminent danger either to themselves or to the public (Hester, 2010). Such people could be unarmed forcefully and arrested by the use of stun guns (Hester, 2010). The police had to take into account the opinion of an expert on the scene for such matters (Hester, 2010). Stun guns could not be used to forcefully make mentally normal criminals to obey police orders, such as exiting a vehicle or lying on the floor, a practice known as “pain compliance” (Hester, 2009). Furthermore, these guns could not be used to foil escape attempts (Hester, 2009). In the situations in which these guns were allowed to be used, the target had to be “isolated and contained” (Hester, 2009) with no danger of causing harm to a bystander (Hester, 2009). The new version makes some changes in the policy. The police officers are no longer required to make mental health judgments or involve an expert before the use of the guns (Hester, 2010). Furthermore, the practice of “pain compliance” (Hester, 2009) is allowed, and the officers can now use the guns in escape situations (Hester, 2010). The condition of the target being “isolated and contained” (Hester, 2009) is no longer applicable (Hester, 2010). The limitation of authorizing one officer for the use of the gun in a municipality of twenty-five thousand, and four in a municipality of seventy-five thousand and above (Hester, 2009) is lifted, and the superintended can now make the decision of authorization based on requirement (Hester, 2010). The officers are still not authorized to shoot at moving vehicles with the stun guns (Hester, 2010). The policy of the use of force has both its advantages and disadvantages. The fact that there are parameters defined in the policy by which the officers have to abide when using force means that there are less chances of officers crossing the line into being inhumane when using force (Use of force, 2000). The policy also makes it mandatory on the officers to report any misuse of force by other officers, and to intervene and try to set the matter right if any of their colleagues are misusing their authority before the need for any legal action arises (Use of force, 2000). However, at times, the policy becomes over-restrictive (Hester, 2010). For instance, the officers are not allowed to use lethal weapons as a means of signaling in times of distress (Use of force, 2000). That is unfortunate if all that the officers poses at the time to call for help is a gun by which to fire as a signal. Similarly, the use of shot guns has been made even more limited than the lethal weapons (Hester, 2010). The condition of not firing at a moving vehicle is questionable as the criminal might escape and do more damage to the innocent public than if he were targeted in the vehicle. The re-enactment of the “pain compliance” (Hester, 2009) procedure is at the border of being unethical. There is a need for further improvement and refinement of the policy. As is pointed out by some officials, the process of law enforcement is very tough as it is; by limiting the use of lethal and non-lethal force, the policy has made it even tougher (Hester, 2010). However, to grant unchecked authorization is also not acceptable. There is a need to make the policy exhaustive in its definition of the use of force. Some experts believe that the use of non-lethal force by just the SWAT team is not feasible; it should be made more widespread (Hester, 2010). But perhaps the only solution is to extensively train SWAT officers in the use of force, and to increase the SWAT team personnel, so that the situations where force is required are only, but effectively, handled by the SWAT team. References Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy. (2000). Use of force. New Jersey. Hester, T. SR. (2009). AG Milgram approves stun guns for N. J. law enforcement. Retrieved from http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/ag-milgram-approves-stun-guns-for-nj-law-enforcement Hester, T. SR. (2010). State Attorney General and police agree to new rules for use of stun guns. Retrieved from http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/state-attorney-general-and-police-agree-to-new-rules-for-use-of-stun-guns U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Use of force by police. New Jersey: Adams, K., Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., Garner, J. H., Greenfeld, L. A., Henriquez, M. A., … Langan, P. A. USAWC Strategy Research Project. (2001). Non-Lethal weapons and strategic policy implications for 21st century peace operations. Pennsylvania: Capstick, Paul R. Read More