Policing Weapons and the Use of Force - Report Example

Policing – Weapons and the Use of Force Name of Student: Name of Course: Name of Instructor: Date of Submission: Policing – Weapons and the Use of Force Introduction Over the years, there have been developments in policing with respect to the use of weapons. The development of new weapons is in line with the technological advancements in the weapon manufacturing industry. In the recent past, the use of the so called non-lethal weapons has increased all over the world. This sharp increase in the use of such weapons arises from the need to embrace professionalism and ethics in policing. Ideally, on lethal weapons are also used extensively in the military. As compared to other weapons, non-lethal weapons cause lesser damage on the subject. They are juts used to maim the target and are less likely to kill him or her or cause any long term injury (MacDonald, Kamsinki & Smith 2009, P. 2270). This explains the reason as to why the weapons are sometimes referred to as pain inducing weapons or non-deadly weapons. The weapons are used in instances where the use of deadly weapons is prohibited, where deadly weapons are due to cause more harm, where the target unarmed and where police want to subdue an uncooperative target. Non-lethal weapons are also used for home security purposes. The legislation surrounding the use of non-lethal weapons varies from country to country. The following essay will take a deep insight into non-lethal weapons and will take a special focus to policing in Australia. Less Lethal Weapons and the Use of Force by Police The use of force by the police has been a subject of considerable discussion over the recent past. As a result of this, researchers and practitioners have been engulfed in a lot of research with an aim of coming up with the most appropriate procedures and ways in which police are supposed to conduct their activities (Smith & Alpert 2000, p.233). In the past, police have been criticized for using excessive force in their work leading to death and injury. Taking a look at Australia, it can be acknowledged that the police have had their fair share of criticism. They were blamed on using excessive force in the occupy Sydney operation in 2011 (Hayes 2011, p.1). Instances in other countries include the beating up to death of Malice Green in Michigan. In ensuring that police reduce the use of excessive force in their operations, it is important to acknowledged the fact that the police are often exposed to compromising situations where instances such as civil litigation against the police tends to bring a lot of problems (Ransley, Anderson & Prenzler 2007, p.143). One of the many ways in which national authorities are able to ensure that police use lesser force is the use of less lethal weapons. Less lethal weapons are weapons which are considered to have a reduced degree of injury to the target and also have reduced chances of leading to the death of the offender. As outlined earlier, there are various legislations around the world which govern the use and possession of non-lethal weapons. There is a wide range of non-lethal weapons. One of the oldest type of non-lethal weapon is the use of light. As seen in many movies around the world, law enforcements agencies have progressively used light to disorient and distract people in a bid to arrest or corner them. This type of non-lethal weapon follows the thought of flashing light into someone’s eyes (Murgado 2013, p.1). Another type of non-lethal weapon which is in use in various parts of the world is chemical based weapons. The common pepper spray which is used to mime targets at close range is an example of a chemical non-lethal weapon. Tear gas and other fume based weapons are another type of less lethal weapons which are in vast use around the world. Chemical based weapons are normally dispersed in liquid or aerosol forms or a combination of the two (Murgado 2013, p.1). The use of chemical dosed water to repress rioters is one of type of water dispersed non-lethal weapons. Another category of non-lethal weapon is electrical based weapons (Murgado 2013, p.1). Electronic stun devices fall into this category. The electric based non-lethal weapons impair the movement of the target, hence enabling the police to arrest him or her. Over the recent past, there have been great advancements into the development and use of electric based non-lethal weapons in the world (Murgado 2013, p.1). Some of weapons that fall in this category include stun guns, taser guns and batons. The use of electrical based non-lethal weapons has continued to elicit a lot of fuss in the world hence explaining the banning of its use in various countries. The last type of projectile weapon is projectile weapons. These types of weapons propel blunt objects towards the targets with an aim to disorient and cause pain to the target and not penetrate his or her skin (Murgado 2013, p.1). Rubber bullets which are commonly used to repress rioters is an example of a projectile weapon. Other types of non-lethal weapons includes automobile stopping technologies which are used to stop vehicles during chases and barriers which are used in form of nets, physical barriers or foams to deter people from crossing a specific area. Policing Theories and the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons The use of non-lethal weapons is an effective way of reducing harm before it occurs. This is the main aim of non-lethal weapons. The objective of the use of non-lethal weapons can be linked with the broken windows theory of policing. The broken windows theory takes the context of house where some of its windows have been broken down. If the window panes are left unrepaired for some time, criminal will continue breaking the rest of them and eventually force their way into the building and vandalize it (Day 2013, p.1). Linking it with crime, the theory states that is small crime is not dealt with; it grows into big crime which essentially needs more resources to combat (Caudill, Getty, Smith, Patten & Trulson 2013, p.34). This is in line with the fact that if the thugs get their way into a building and vandalize it, the owner of the house will incur higher costs in repairing the window panes in addition to replacing the vandalized equipments. Linking up the broken windows theory with the use of non-lethal weapons, it can be acknowledged that the early use on non-lethal weapons reduces instances of adverse effects of crime. Giving an example of death, it can be acknowledged that the act of disorienting or disabling the motor ability of targets is a sure way of arresting or cornering suspect without necessarily killing them in case lethal weapons were used. In addition to this, the use of non-lethal weapons leads to reduced instances of injury infliction on the targets. Although non-lethal weapons cause some degree of pain on the victims, they do not cause any substantial permanent damage on them hence reducing instances of greater damage on the target (Meyer 2006, p.1). Additionally, non-lethal weapons have come in handy in enabling policemen to arrest offenders before they escape. On this point, it is important to acknowledge that the use of lethal weapons on unarmed targets is illegal. However, it can be appreciated that policemen are sometimes outran or outwitted by the targets hence leading to the escape of important leads on crucial cases or the escape of offenders. This ultimately leads to the growth of crime. However, non-lethal weapons empower the policemen to disable the suspects before they escape, hence bringing them to book and ultimately leading to reduced instances of crime (Meyer 2006, p.1). This is in line with the broken windows theory which upholds the need for countering crime on its initial stages, hence being able to reduce its growth. Another theory of policing which can be linked with the use of non-lethal weapons is community policing theory. The community policing theory holds that policing is the responsibility of both the police and the community involved (Oliver & Bartgis 1998, p. 490). Community policing advocates for the collective by all the stakeholders in a community towards combating crime. In some of community policing approaches to security, some members of the community are given access to non-lethal weapons which are in turn used to disable offenders / suspect before they are apprehended by the police. This is a good way of ensuring that the public is able to hand over suspects to the police for the legal actions to be taken against them. This is contrarily to previous practices where mob justice was the order of the day. The increased cooperation between the police and the community enables the police to be more effective in their work, for the community to increase their trust on the police and ultimately to the improvement of security in the community (Pelfrey 2007, p.624). The use of Non-Lethal weapons in Australia The use of non-lethal weapons in Australia is highly regulated by the government. There is a partial use of non-lethal weapons in the country as compared to other countries for instance the United States. Many regions in Australia is yet to legalize the use of electric stun devices and tasers owing to the negative implication of legalizing such. Some of the regions in Australia which have legalized the used of tasers are Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia (Mcdougall 2009, p.1). However, the use of non-lethal weapons on the county is still under close scrutiny due to its counter active effects on leading to increased police violence and injury (Mcdougall 2009, p.1). Negative Implications of the Use of Non-Lethal Weapons Although the use of non-lethal weapons is associated with a lot of benefits, it is also associated with a wide range of negative implications. One of the implications is with respect to causing injury or death. If non-lethal weapons are not used appropriately, they may lead to permanent injuries on the target or even death at some instances (Massingham 2012, p.675). The death of a man in US after a taser gun had been used on him is a manifestation of the killing ability of non-lethal weapons (ABC Radio Australia 2013, p.1). The use of non-lethal weapons also leads to more violent policemen. Looking at Australia, it can be acknowledged that the legalization of the use of Capsicum spray in Queensland led to an increased the violence with which the police used violence on targets (Kieran 2012, p.1). From the above, it can be acknowledges that non-lethal weapons are not as safe as they seem to be. Therefore, there is a need for appropriate legislative measures to govern the possession and use of the weapons. This explains the cautious approach taken by Australia and other countries in the world. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be appreciated that non-lethal weapons are effective in reducing the use of force by the police and also in combating crime. Non-Lethal weapons have a far much lesser damage on the target as compared to other lethal weapons. In addition to this, less lethal weapons are intended to lead to less use of force by the police. The use of less deadly/ lethal weapons by the police was analyses through two policing theories; the broken windows and community policing theories. It has been identified that in line with the need for deterring small crimes from escalating into big ones as per the broken windows theory, less lethal weapons have the capacity to reduce the extent of damage which would have been as a result of the use of lethal weapons. With respect to community policing, less lethal weapons lead to the development of a good relationship between the community and the police thereby leading to efficiency in policing. The legislations on the possession and use of less lethal weapons vary from country to country. However, Australia has very strict laws on the possession and use of less lethal weapons. Less lethal weapons have the capacity to lead to a reduced use of force by the police. References ABC Radio Australia, 2013. Should Pacific Police Be Cautious About Non Lethal Weapons?, ABC Radio Australia, Retrieved on 31st October 2011 from http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacific/radio/onairhighlights/should-pacific-police-be-cautious-about-non-lethal-weapons Australian Capital Authority, 1996. Prohibited Weapons Act 1996, pp. 1-27 Caudill, J., Getty, R., Smith, R., Patten, R., & Trulson, C., 2013. Discouraging window breakers: the lagged effects of police activity on crime, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 36, No.: 3, pp. 34- 50 Day, L., 2013. Policing Theory Suggests Fixing Broken Windows Helps Fix Crime, KALW, Retrieved on 31st October 2011 from http://kalw.org/post/policing-theory-suggests-fixing-broken-windows-helps-fix-crime Downs, R., 2007. Less Lethal Weapons: A Technologist’s Perspective, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 358-384 Hayes, I., 2011. Police deny excessive force used in Occupy Sydney raid, The Sydney Morning Herald, Retrieved on 31st October 2011 from http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-deny-excessive-force-used-in-occupy-sydney-raid-20111023-1me59.html Kieran, 2012. Police with Tasers Will Be More Violent, Not Less, Retrieved on 31st October 2011 from http://anarchistperspective.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/police-with-tasers-will-be-more-violent-not-less/ MacDonald, J., Kamsinki, R.,& Smith, M, 2009. The Effect of Less Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use Of Force Events, Am J Public Health, Vol. 99, No. 12, pp. 2268 – 2274 Massingham, E., 2012. Conflict Without Casualties ... A Note Of Caution: Non-Lethal Weapons And International Humanitarian Law, International Review, Vol. 94, No. 886, pp. 673 - 685 McEwen, T., 1997. Policies On Less-Than-Lethal Force In Law Enforcement Agencies, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 39-59. Meyer, G., 2006. Nonlethal Weapons: Early Use Means Fewer Deaths And Injuries, PoliceOne, Retrieved on 31st October 2011 from http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/articles/134658-Nonlethal-weapons-Early-use-means-fewer-deaths-and-injuries/ Murgado, A., 2013. Less Lethal Weapon Options, Police, Retrieved on 31st October 2011 from http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/03/less-lethal-weapon-options.aspx Oliver, W., & Bartgis, E., 1998. Community Policing: A Conceptual Framework, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 490-509. Pelfrey, W., 2007. Style Of Policing Adopted By Rural Police And Deputies An Analysis Of Job Satisfaction And Community Policing, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 620-636 Ransley, J., Anderson, J., & Prenzler, T., 2007. Civil Litigation Against Police in Australia: Exploring Its Extent, Nature and Implications for Accountability, The Australian And New Zealand Journal Of Criminology, Vol.40, No. 2, pp. 143–160 Smith, M., & Alpert, G., 2000. Pepper Spray A Safe And Reasonable Response To Suspect Verbal Resistance, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 233-245. Vilke, G., & Chan,T., 2007. Less Lethal Technology: Medical Issues, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 341-357 Read More