Introduction
I am a researcher of a “think tank” organization, the Association for Municipal Cities. The mayor of Virtual City has recently shared her plans to increase the force size of the department and introduce a Conducted Energy Weapons program for the force. The Virtual City Police Department is the largest in the state and has been operating for 63 years. The organization employs a total of 155 officers and 70 support staff members to help with disciplinary, administrative, and technological tasks. These weapons are commonly employed to prevent disturbances and remove insubordinate inmates from their cells. When electrical impulses are directed at a target, temporary immobilization and involuntary muscle spasms are produced. It involves using force, but not in a way that could cause death. This research will examine the pros and cons of using conducted-energy weapons and devices for the Virtual City Police Department.
Conducted Energy Weapons (CEW)
Conducted Energy Weapons are battery-operated devices that can render the targets helpless. Contact with these devices can impair the offender’s free will and cause them to move more slowly by alteration of motor responses. Tasers are one of the most common types of CEW, also known by its alternative name, the Tom A. Swift Electric Rifle, which was developed in the mid-1970s by American inventor Jack Cover (Tumbarska, 2021). The Taser looks and functions like a small gun and can be operated with one hand. Tasers are usually considered less lethal or harmful than bullets because they only temporarily incapacitate the target through an electroshock powered by nitrogen. Tasers are frequently used to control riots and other forms of public disorder. When the trigger is pulled with a taser by a police officer or other authorized user, two tiny darts emerge and shoot to make direct body contact, shocking the victim with 50,000 volts of electricity.
Advantages
Many advantages are associated with using CEWs, which have proved to be a better option than other restraint methods. The First advantage is that Tasers are a method of self-defense for law enforcers. Military and police officers face many compromising situations that may need defending themselves. These CEW weapons can be used up to 35 feet, which is helpful during attracts on offenders who might want to harm the officers. The taser guns shock the culprit into submission by temporally slowing their motion, pushing them into submission before causing harm to the officers.
The second advantage of CEWs is that they are developed to use non-lethal force. Companies involved in producing these devices claim that the force emitted by neuromuscular incapacitation. The force is only meant to subdue the aggressive offenders who pose dangers to themselves and others. The force is only meant to apprehend and take them down without injuring them or killing them. Law enforcement officers need to be armed, not necessarily with firearms. The Bureau of ATF does not classify CEWs as forearms; they only use compressed nitrogen propellant, not gunpowder (Kroll et al., 2019). The use of lethal firearms is restricted and should only be applied as a final resort in unavoidable circumstances.
Some studies have shown that they are more effective tools for law enforcement and have managed to minimize the risk of harm to offenders and police officers. Between 10 to 15 deaths that result from restraining are not caused by tasers (Tumbarska, 2021). This indicates that if a less lethal method of restraining were employed, the persons would still be alive. A study conducted by Stevenson and Drummonds-smith (2020) shows that before CEWs, suspects who required medical attention were 55%, but after the introduction, the number reduced to 40%. Of the restrain cases, 99.75% did not result in harming the suspects, and 236,117 lives were saved (Stevenson & Drummond-Smith, 2020). Injuries succumbed to tasers are hence fewer than police dogs, batons, guns, and irritant sprays.
Another advantage is that CEWs are safer in cases where many bystanders are at the crime scene. The devices can take down the intended suspect without causing harm to the people surrounding them (Tumbarska, 2021). In cases where other methods are used, such as guns or batons, innocent people are more likely to be injured. The commotion of using a firearm may also lead to injury of unintended civilians as they try to run due to fear. Using conducted energy weapons requires a high level of responsibility during usage.
Training is essential to law enforcement for the use of any restraining tool. Proper training and ample practice in using CEWs may help their effective usage with minimum harm. To use the CEWs efficiently, the officers may require minimal training in their function and protective measures to keep them secure and avoid harm to the people they use them. This significant advantage as the usage of typical firearms necessitated more training, time, and responsibility from the officers to avoid causing accidents with the weapons. According to Williams (2022), once the CEW devices are deployed, the date and time are recorded and saved. This means these devices are not supposed to be used by personnel unless they have received proper training from licensed force trainers.
Disadvantages
There are many advantages related to using CEWs, but controversies exist regarding implementing these restraint programs. Some people feel that as much as the devices are safer, they are not completely risk-free. The weapons are less lethal but may cause some risks or injuries to the culprit. A study by McGuinness & Lipsedge, (2020) identified that after the use of CEWs, some persons experience irregular rhythms of the heart, and other people may experience cardiac arrest that has led to death. Another health challenge related to using CEWs is Excited delirium (ExD) syndrome (McGuinness & Lipsedge, 2022). The symptoms include hypersensitivity, paranoia, aggressiveness, unusual strength, and restlessness. The weapon’s aim is not to cause death but is still a torture device and may result in pain to the victims.
The use of CEWs has additionally been associated with causing mental impairment. A study by Todak et al. (2018) indicated that persons who have been restrained using electric shocks have tested positive during tests for cognitive impairment. Temporary cognitive impairment may result in the suspect not exercising the Miranda rights that stipulate that what they need to remain silent or what they say may be used against them in court. The cognitive impairment may result in the offender having less knowledge of the things they say and may result in incarceration. The impairment may result in more aggression and increased troubles with the law.
Conclusion
The Virtual City Police Department would benefit from using the CEW devices and program. Countless people, such as lawbreakers, civilians, and law enforcement personnel, have been killed and injured since firearms are the primary weapon of choice for police officers. Cops will often draw their weapons in self-defense if they feel threatened or witness unusual behavior. Officers still rely on firearms despite the availability of retractable batons and pepper sprays, less threatening weapons. Therefore, CEWs need to be part of a program, and implementing it would benefit the organization and minimize injuries during restrain. However, there are some limitations to using CEWs, such as physical and mental harm to the suspect.
References
Kroll, M. W., Brave, M. A., Pratt, H. M. O., Witte, K. K., Kunz, S. N., & Luceri, R. M. (2019). Benefits, risks, and myths of Taser handheld electrical weapons. Human Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and Safety, 3(1), 1-13. Web.
McGuinness, T., & Lipsedge, M. (2022). ‘Excited Delirium’, acute behavioral disturbance, death and diagnosis. Psychological medicine, 1-11. Web.
Stevenson, R., & Drummond-Smith, I. (2020). Medical implications of conducted energy devices in law enforcement. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 73, 101948. Web.
Todak, N., White, M. D., Dario, L. M., & Borrego, A. R. (2018). Overcoming the challenges of experimental research: Lessons from a criminal justice case study involving TASER exposure. Evaluation Review, 42(3), 358-385. Web.
Tumbarska, A. (2021). Development and use of less lethal electroshock weapons in law enforcement. Security & Future, 5(3), 102-105.
Williams, H. E. (2022). Weapon confusion: Taser CEWs, firearms, and human error theories. Criminal Justice Review, 07340168221123238. Web.