Police Use of Non-Lethal Weapons

Police Use of Non-Lethal Weapons

There is a wide variety of weapons which are now available for self-defense as well as for the use of police when tackling dangerous perpetrators. While some are used particularly to inflict lethal harm to the attacker others aim at only detracting the perpetrator from causing any harm to the victim. The use of non-lethal weapons by the police has been a subject for debate for some time now because it has become obvious that technology enables the law enforcement forces to use in their missions different means that are not lethal for the human life.

The main points of discussion referring to the use of non-lethal weapons by the police can be seen in the actual discussion over police legitimacy. More precisely, it is considered that nowadays no individual or state entity has the right to apply force by all means. In this sense, one can consider the actual notion of police legitimacy in order to see the way in which the community can be split when discussing the matter of non-lethal means of enforcing the law. In the end, the matter is reduced to the right of the police to inflict lethal harm. Therefore, from a theoretical point-of-view, police legitimacy can be understood as "public recognition of the policymaker's authority" as well as the result of an "agreement" (Mondak, 1994, 677). More precisely, "legitimacy exists when the citizen approves of a policy's substance" that is when the community can identify with the core nature of the law enforcement practice (Mondak, 1994, 677).

Given the fact that there are more and more cases of abuses being revealed at the level of the police work, the debate on whether the police is legitimate to use lethal force against people, regardless of their offence, is thus fueled. Cases of police abuse stirred the controversy over the excessive use of fire arms in police activities. In this sense, one of the cases which drew the attention of the media as well as the public was the Da Silva case in which Kurt Da Silva was killed "by a Pawtucket, Rhode Island police officer after a low-speed car chase. DeSilva, who was unarmed, was suspected of driving a stolen car" (America Civil Liberties Union, 1997). This comes to prove the fact that indeed action must be taken in order to prevent abuses from the police, no matter the difficult circumstances the law enforcement authorities are faced with.

Another aspect which is relevant for the debate is the doctrine of the proportionality of punishment. More precisely, "an agent who is guilty of (and responsible for" murder must be punished by death" (Corlett, 2001, 51). Despite the fact that the example offered by Corlett and cited from Kant is radical, in general terms it can be said that one of the basic principles of the law is represented by the proportionality of the punishment that is the punishment must be proportional to the wrong done. In most cases of police abuse however, this is not a respected principle. Consequently, the police tend to lose its legitimacy in front of the public opinion and at the same time it becomes prone to criticism and disdain.

From the perspective of the issues presented above, the discussions on the possibility of using more weapons with a non-lethal effect became more and more a certainty. Non-lethal weapons are defined as weapons "employed so as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment" (Bunker, n.d). Therefore, it can be said that the use of non-lethal weapons is a means through which harm can be inflicted without the danger of lethal consequences. By comparison to conventional weapons which "destroy their targets principally through blast, penetration and fragmentation, non- lethal weapons employ means other than gross physical destruction to prevent the target from functioning" (Bunker, n.d).

Technically speaking, non-lethal weapons use techniques "have relatively reversible effects on personnel or materiel (and) they affect objects differently within their area of influence" (Bunker, n.d). Such non-lethal weapons include according to most classifications "verbal control such as tactical communications, karate kick, pain compliance, pressure points, punch, miscellaneous bodily force, such as choke holds, arm holds, flashlight, swarm, where several police attack from various directions, chemical irritant spray, including capsicum (capstun), tear gas (CS, CN) and mace, electronic stun devices, such as taser, ultron, and nova, the Arwen 37 rifle which fires rubber cylindrical batons, tear gas or stun grenades (for use by tactical operations groups only), and stunning explosives (again, for use by tactical operations groups only)" (Hamdorf, n.d.). Despite the fact that such methods of containing the threat in a non-lethal manner are most of the time sure, there are situations in which these devices can fail and abuses can still take place.

The topic of non-lethal weapons is important for the study of police work largely due to the fact that it has become more and more important the idea that police intervention should be fair and according to the principles of law. At the same time, given the fact that there has been so much discussion over the abuses that are taking place inside the law enforcement squads, the police has become more and more aware of the limits their operations have concerning the rights of the individuals, regardless of their degree of guilt. Moreover, for the community the discussion over non-lethal weapons is crucial because it sends a clear message on the intention of the police to reduce to the minimum the harm inflicted upon the perpetrators.

At the same time though, the community may experience a reverse effect. It may consider a lack of proper defense if fire arms are not used on a systematic basis for the protection of the population. This would attract certain reluctance from the population to trust the police and may decide to take the protection of their homes and of their families in their own hands. Consequently, the debate over the right to own a fire arm can become more and more legitimate.

Given the uncertainty related to the use of non-lethal weapons in the course of police action, discussions over their use are raised. In this sense, there are some who argue for the use and for the benefits of non-lethal weapons, while others argue their inefficiency. On the one hand, those who agree with the use of non-lethal weapons argue that it represents a better means of stopping crime without inflicting lethal damage on the perpetrator. At the same time, it reduces the possibility of police abuses. It is considered that some of the most important causes of police abuse have been the "excessive use of deadly force, excessive use of physical force, and discriminatory patterns of arrest." (America Civil Liberties Union, 1997) From this point-of-view, the use of non-lethal weapons would be an important improvement in the way in which police would tackle the fight against perpetrators.

At the same time, the police continue to confront itself with massive number of complaints regarding abuses and violent behavior from people who were later found not guilty. The use of non-lethal means of intervention can also reduce the number of people being killed without their guilt proof. In some U.S. states the death penalty is still applicable; however, in other states it is no longer a means of punishment. Therefore, it is important that the police act only to suppress the threat, not to inflict irreversible damage to it. The use of non-lethal weapons is considered to be a solution for this matter.

On the other hand however, there are opinions who argue the contrary. Little extensive research has actually been done to explain the full range of effects weapons of this nature have had on the targets. More precisely, "Amnesty International said it had catalogued 103 cases in which the targeted person has later died. Calling for "an independent, comprehensive medical study" into Taser safety, Amnesty listed drug intoxication, pre-existing heart conditions and "excited delirium" as serious risk factors in Taser-related deaths" (Hambling, 2005). Therefore, it is rather difficult to have a full account on the actual results of the use of non-lethal weapons.

Other weapons as well can have deadly effects. For instance, acoustic bullets or the Photic Driver weapon (Harper's Magazine, 2003). In the first case the impact can be so extreme as to cause death; in the second case, it can have deadly effects especially for those who suffer from epilepsy. Therefore, in the end, the use of non-lethal weapons depends on the person being targeted. It has happened that through the extensive use of police force, people died in handcuffs because of their own health problems. Therefore, limited force can be applied and irreversible damage can still be caused.