Advantage to the use of tasers by law enforcement officials - Essay Example

Introduction Option Our nation’s crime rates are soaring. A Department of Justice publication reports that almost 500,000 million violent crimes were committed in 2005 (FBI, 2006). Approximately one million and a half murders, rapes and armed robberies were committed across the United States in a single year. Not only does this figure evidence the extent to which crime has reached pandemic proportions in the country but underscores the nature of the on-the-job dangers which law enforcement officers confront every singe day. When considering that firearms are the primary culprit, the solution appears simple enough: a ban on firearms. As Hemenway and Weil explain, “guns in the United States currently exact a terrible toll: over 1,500 accidental deaths per year, close to 12,000 homicides and more than 17,000 suicides” (94). In other words, apart from the deliberate use of guns in the commission of crimes, guns are responsible for thousands and thousands of preventable deaths per year. Despite this, however, the very notion of banning firearms is unrealistic. The American public believes that it has an inalienable right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defence and, given Constitutional provisions supporting this right, it is unrealistic to assume that any gun ban proposal will ever successfully pass into federal legislature and be effectively implemented (Hemenway and Weil, 94-96). Added to that, if law enforcement officials are to effectively fight the crime pandemic, they must be armed. The situation, as described, presents policy makers and law enforcement with a paradox. On the one hand, they must stem the proliferation of firearms in society but, on the other, cannot do so whether because of constitutional provisions or the imperatives of arming police officers. The solution to this problem, according to Hemenway and Weil lies in “weapon redesign” (94). Lethal weapons need to be replaced with less than lethal weapons, such as tasers. Introduction Option 2: Our nation’s crime rates are soaring. A Department of Justice publication reports that almost 1,500,000 million violent crimes were committed in 2005 (FBI, 2006). Approximately one million and a half murders, rapes and armed robberies were committed across the United States in a single year. Not only does this figure evidence the extent to which crime has reached pandemic proportions in the country but underscores the nature of the on-the-job dangers which law enforcement officers confront every singe day. To confront the crime pandemic, law enforcement officers must be armed. If not, law enforcement would not stand a chance against armed criminals. At the same time, however, Adams and Jennison report that the use of firearms by police officers jeopardizes the lives of citizens, places police officers at the risk of being shot with their own weapons and importantly, of unnecessarily inflicting grievous, possibly fatal, bodily harm upon suspects (Adams and Jennison, 447). Accordingly, while police officers need to carry firearms, their crime-fighting arsenal should be supplemented with tasers. Rough Thesis Statement: Even though tasers have been linked to a few deaths, proper training in taser use will provide law enforcement officers with a less-than-lethal option for the apprehension of violent suspects and will limit the dangers which the use of guns by law enforcement poses to officers and citizens. Body Paragraph 1 – Danger of Guns Guns are a source of the majority of the nation’s violent crimes. Yet, the solution to violent crime does not lie in imposing a ban on firearms. As Hemenway and Weil explain, “guns in the United States currently exact a terrible toll: over 1,500 accidental deaths per year, close to 12,000 homicides and more than 17,000 suicides” (94). In other words, apart from the deliberate use of guns in the commission of crimes, guns are responsible for several thousands of preventable deaths per year. Despite this, however, the very notion of banning firearms is unrealistic. The American public believes that it has an inalienable right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defence. Given Constitutional provisions supporting this right, it is unrealistic to assume that any gun ban proposal will ever successfully pass into federal legislature or ever be implemented (Hemenway and Weil, 94-96). Body Paragraph 2 – Indispensability of guns Considering the proliferation of guns among civilians and criminal elements, if law enforcement officials are to effectively fight the crime pandemic, they must be armed. The situation, as described, presents policy makers and law enforcement with a paradox. On the one hand, they must stem the proliferation of firearms in society but, on the other, cannot do so whether because of constitutional provisions or the imperatives of arming police officers. The solution to this problem, according to Hemenway and Weil lies in “weapon redesign” (Hemenway and Weil, 94). Lethal weapons need to be replaced with less than lethal weapons, such as tasers. Body Paragraph 3 - Importance of Less than Lethal Weapons Police officers should not be disarmed but their crime-fighting arsenal should be supplemented by a less than lethal weapon. There are three types of less lethal weapons, these being “impact projectile weapons, irritant sprays and conductive energy devices (CEDs), which occupy an intermediate level in the use of force continuum” (Vilke and Chan, 341). Impact projectile weapons shoot out rubber or wood missiles which have a less traumatic effect on targets (342). Their use, however, has established that impact projectiles cause grievous bodily harm. “Both injuries and deaths have been reported with blunt impact projectiles which have caused injury by direct penetration into the body” (342). The second type, irritant sprays, partially incapacitates individuals but does not subdue them. Furthermore, they have the potential to incapacitate users. As a direct outcome of the shortcomings identified in both impact projectile weapons and irritant sprays, CEDs such as tasers have been identified as the most effective less than lethal weapon available to law enforcement officials. Body Paragraph 4 – Law Enforcement’s need for Tasers The adoption of tasers by law enforcement officials has the potential to solve the problems associated with the use of firearms and, in so doing, fortify law enforcement’s capacity to effectively fight crime. Cramer supports this argument by highlighting the advantages of tasers. As he explains, there are three distinct advantages to taser use. The first is that tasers are relatively safe, in the sense that they do not, by necessity, inflict grievous bodily harm upon targets in direct contrast to firearms. The second is that tasers have the power to incapacitate aggressors and suspects and, in so doing, give police officers the requisite time to restrain them. The third is that the use of tasers does not expose law enforcement or innocent bystanders to the threat of death or, at least, serious bodily harm, as do guns (Cramer 11-13). It seems that tasers have the potential to affect the same restraint on suspects and aggressors which guns do without necessarily exposing the human targets in question to serious harm. Therefore, as Vilke and Chan write, ““in the past decade, the TASER has become the most popular incapacitating neuromuscular device on the market with an estimated 10 percent of all police officers in this country currently carrying the device” (349). Tasers, in other words, are gradually being adopted by police departments across the country precisely because of their outlined advantages. Body Paragraph 5 - Guns versus Tasers A comparison of guns to tasers illustrates the extent to which the latter addresses the shortcomings of the former. Tasers are handheld weapons which reconcile between the apparently conflicting imperatives of self-defence and misuse culminating in death (Hemenway and Weil 94-95). They eliminate the threat to life posed by firearms and the second is to preserve the function of weapons as an instrument for self-defence and the incapacitation of assailants (94). Traditional firearms cannot satisfy the first aim and cannot fulfil the second with any degree of efficiency. The taser is the solution to this problem as it incapacitates assailants without physically injuring them. They are not a danger to users and are incapable of being used for murder, accidental killing or suicide. These are weapons which are, in some cases, shaped as a gun but instead of firing bullets, discharge an electrical current which incapacitates assailants without killing or physically injuring them. They are not a danger to users and are, by their very nature, incapable of being used for murder, accidental killing or suicide. Stun guns fulfil the purposes which traditional firearms are expected to satisfy but have failed to. It is, thus, that tasers, are an effective and efficient supplement to law enforcement’s crime fighting arsenal. Body Paragraph 6 – Counterargument: Dangers of Taser Tasers, contrary to popular assumption, are not entirely harmless and risk-free. Tasers are dangerous and they directly attack the nervous system through the discharge of high voltages of electricity. As Adams and Jennison explain, “Amnesty International, a world-wide human rights advocacy organization, is calling for a moratorium on Taser use (Amnesty International, 2004). They cite concerns over lasting health effects and point to 152 civilian deaths in the USA and Canada that occurred subsequent to Taser use” (448). The electric voltages released by tasers can lead to long-lasting physical harm and can kill. It is very important that law enforcement officials understand this because their cautious use of this particular device is inextricably linked to their comprehension of its potential to function as a fatal weapon (450-451). More importantly, once law enforcement comprehends and accepts the dangers of tasers, the will formulate taser use guidelines which are specifically designed so that the benefits of the weapon are exploited and its disadvantages minimized. Body Paragraph 7 – Response to Counter argument While tasers have the potential to kill and inflict grievous bodily harm they neither need to inflict grievous harm or kill. As Smith, Petrocelli and Scheer note, the available scientific and empirical evidence shows that tasers can inflict bodily harm on targets and, in some cases, have been linked to the death of human targets (399-400). Rather than these deaths or the possibility of Taser-induced grievous bodily harm pushing this less than lethal weapon out of use, they have invoked the design and implementation of well-informed policies regarding Taser use (399-400). The implication here is that even in light of Taser-related deaths, the weapon remains law enforcement’s best option for immobilizing aggressive targets without subjecting those targets to a significant probability of death or critical injury. Tasers can kill but they need not kill. More importantly, whether or not they do, depends on whether or not police officers have received proper training in Taser use (400). In other words, to ensure that Tasers fulfil their purpose while living up to their categorization as a less than lethal weapon, police officers must be knowledgeable about the weapon and its proper use and, importantly, policy guidelines must reflect and insist upon proper use. Therefore, while the media may argue that tasers can be utilized as lethal weapons and are, as such, dangerous, (Davies, 10) proper taser training will provide police officers with the knowledge they need to control their weapons. Body Paragraph 8 – Expert Opinion Law enforcement professionals and weapons experts advocate the use of less than lethal (LTL) weapons in the police force, emphasizing that while police often have to use force to subdue suspects, they rarely need to employ lethal force (McEwan, 40). Conceding to the fact that there have been criticisms over the use of LTLs and that scientific evidence indicates that they have the potential to detrimentally affect physical wellbeing, possibly leading to death, McEwen counters that this is because police have not been sufficiently trained in the use of TASERs (40-41). TASERs and other LTLs have the potential to inflict serious harm upon targets, and have been known to cause death, if users do not adhere to very strict guidelines concerning their use (41). As McEwen writes, “the need for guidelines on the use of LTL force mirrors the need for guidelines on the use of lethal force. Without such policies, departments risk raising the number of injuries and deaths from inappropriate uses of force when their intent is just the opposite” (41). Indeed, Even though LTL can inflict serious, possibly fatal, harm, McEwen advocates their widespread use among law enforcement. Lethal weapons are bound to impose serious, possibly grievous, bodily harm upon targets but LTL are not. Law enforcement must be armed because situations arise where they either have to defend themselves or members of the public. If they are unarmed, this means that they have no means for executing their duty to defend or, indeed, a way for subduing suspects. Nevertheless, this does not mean that police have to be armed with lethal weaponry, especially when considering that this has often resulted in unwarranted deaths (39-40). This is precisely where TASER and other LTL enter into the picture as the ideal alternative; TASER provide law enforcement with the instrument required for the execution of their responsibilities without leading to grievous bodily harm. TASERS can subdue without killing (McEwan 39-41). Body Paragraph 9 - Training The potential for misuse draws attention to the imperatives of training law enforcement officials in the use of LTL, enforcing strict guidelines concerning their use and implementing very strict policies on the use of force. These three imperatives, if embraced, positively reflect upon police performance as they reduce the number of unwarranted deaths and incidents of police brutality, or excessive use of force. This is amply evidence by the New York Police Department’s performance. “The New York City Police Department experienced a significant reduction in shootings by police over the decade of the 1980s. At the time, Commissioner Lee Brown attributed the decrease to several factors, including LTL weapons and stronger policies on use of force” (55). Therefore, LTL are the ideal replacement for lethal weapons as long as their introduction into law enforcement is preceded by training and accompanied by strict guidelines regarding their use and the avoidance of unnecessary force. Body Paragraph 10 - Tasers, Effective and Safe With proper training and well-informed taser-use guidelines, tasers can provide law enforcement with the tool they need to carry out their responsibilities without inflicting grievous bodily harm on targets. According to Pilant, discussions surrounding the redesign of weapons used by law enforcement are guided by two objectives. The first is to eliminate the threat to life posed by firearms and the second is to preserve the function of weapons as an instrument for self-defence and the incapacitation of assailants (Pilant, 17). Traditional firearms are incapable, by the very nature of their design, to satisfy the first aim and cannot fulfil the second with any degree of efficiency. As Hemenway and Weil write, “The current handgun is not an ideal weapon. Only an extremely accurate shot will immediately incapacitate an assailant. Yet the handgun is potentially so dangerous to individuals and families that its value for home protection is doubtful” (94). The solution to this problem comes in the form of stun guns or TASER. These are weapons which are, in some cases, shaped as a gun but instead of firing bullets, discharge an electrical current which incapacitates assailants without killing or physically injuring them. They are not a danger to users and are, by their very nature, incapable of being used for murder, accidental killing or suicide. Stun guns fulfil the purposes which traditional firearms are expected to satisfy but have failed to. “The Taser shoots darts that are attached to the gun by wires that carry an electric current. An individual is likely to be immobilized if hit on any part of the body” (Hemenway and Weil, 96). It is, thus, that tasers, while not a replacement for handguns, are an effective and efficient supplement to law enforcement’s crime fighting arsenal. Conclusion In the final analysis, there is one overriding advantage to the use of tasers by law enforcement officials. This is the weapon’s ability to subdue suspects and assailants without inflicting grievous bodily harm upon them. Guns, or traditional firearms, are incapable of doing so. Certainly, they can very effectively subdue assailants but not without grievously harming them and, possibly, killing them. While conceding to the fact that tasers have the potential to inflict serious harm upon assailants and targets, their judicious policy-guided use minimizes, even eliminates, the possibility of the weapon transforming into a lethal instrument. Indeed, with training, law enforcement officers can employ tasers in their crime-fighting tasks without endangering themselves, suspects or innocent bystanders. It is precisely because of this that law enforcement needs to supplement its crime-fighting arsenal with tasers. Bibliography Adams, K. and Victoria Jennison. “What We Do Not Know About Police Use Of Tasers.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. 30(2007), 447-465. Online. Emerald Insight. 21 March 2008. Cramer, Robert J. “Taser Weapons: Use of Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies: GAO-05-464.” GAO Reports. 5/26/2005, 1-31. Online. EBSCOhost. 21 March 2008. Cusac, Anne-Marie. “The Trouble with Tasers.” Progressive. 69(2005), 22-27. Online. EBSCOhost. 21 March 2008. Davies, Pete. Tasers: Why the Media Hates and Fears It. New York: Adna Press, 2005. Frasier, Margo L “The Use of Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers).” TELEMASP Bulletin. 12(2005), 1-10. Online. EBSCOhost. 21 March 2008. Hemenway, David and Douglas Weil. “Phasers on Stun: The Case for Less Lethal Weapons.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 9 (Winter, 1990): 94-98. Online. Emerald Insight. 21 March 2008. McEwen, Tom. “Policies On Less-Than-Lethal Force In Law Enforcement Agencies.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. 20(1997): 39-59. Online. Emerald Insight. 21 March 2008. Pilant, L. Less than lethal weapons: New solutions for law enforcement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2005. Smith, Michael R., Matthew Petrocelli and Charlie Scheer. “Excessive force, civil liability, and the Taser in the nation’s courts: Implications for law enforcement policy and practice.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. 30(2007), 398-422. Online. Emerald Insight. 21 March 2008. Vilke, Gary M. and Theodore C. Chan. “Less Lethal Technology: Medical Issues.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. 30(2007): 341-357. Online. Emerald Insight. 21 March 2008. Read More