I was going to post this... good thing I always read a thread in its entirety first. *INTERNET TED HIGH-FIVE*Grey Walker said:
Poll: Are tasers tools or weapons?
- Thread starter Thaluikhain
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No it is not cheaper, its by far the most expensive option. Not counting the fact that their are barely enough prison places in the first place either. The better and cheaper option for society would be to address the issues that create people like him in the first place, or at the very least sort him out so he gets his life in order.cookyy2k said:
Prison is expensive, its probably cheaper to give him his crappy benefits and put him before the courts every few weeks than to lock him up. Estimates place the cost of around £50,000 per year to keep somebody locked up in the UK. There are knock on effects to society and they cause additional cost to the state, those are pretty esoteric and complicated and are based around things like resettling the inmate after release.
Obviously he cannot go on doing what hes doing but locking him up just costs more money and causes more problems. Addressing his behaviour and lifestyle is the only real answer, and addressing the problems in the wider population.
Hence my comment about getting "tough on crime" doesn't work. If you look at the country's with low crime rates or low re-offension rights it doesn't reflect how tough they are, the opposite is often true. Where country's have uncompromising police and harsh jails it has little affect on crime, but where crime rights are low it begins with society itself in addition to how they deal with the problems.
Unfortunately, yeah, it is.cookyy2k said:
Compare crime rates in the "harsh-on-crime" US and "soft-on-crime" Northern Europe.
You don't like the idea of criminals "comfortably" watching TV in their cells? Consider this: How do you expect them to pass the time instead? Swapping crime stories, thus making them more proficient criminals? Getting into fights, thus making them more violent? Raping each other, making them more... rapey(?), spreading STDs, or prompting them to joing a gang for protection.
The result? Countries like Denmark have a recidivism rate that's only half of that in the US or the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3036450.stm
The weapon/tool thing is really a false dichotomy, but you're right to boil it down to this question. And it's not an easy one.thaluikhain said:
To my mind, however, it should be acceptable to use a taser on a non-cooperative subject. When they are an actual threat to people, that is justification for the use of lethal force. Until that point, the police still need to have a very clear "or else."
There's a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to tasers and police. I'd like to clear it up, if you'll permit:
Tasers are not primarily there to protect the subject being tased. They are there to protect the police officer.
Here's what I mean -- the common argument is that, in the case of a non-cooperative subject, the officer can wrestle them into the handcuffs, etc. (That's once we get past the hurdle of people refusing to follow instructions from the police, but there's no talking to those people.) Think about it as a police officer, and you'll see the problems. When you get in close for hand-to-hand with the subject:
1. You're putting yourself and the subject on equal footing, meaning you sacrifice a measure of control of the situation. Since you're the person legally and ethically responsible for taking control of the situation, this is a huge problem.
2. You give up your advantage of distance, meaning you open yourself to harm or injury. Since, odds are, there aren't other officers in vicinity, you're risking "abandoning your post" when you're incapacitated or injured.
3. You're putting your firearm and other weapons within arms' reach of an already-uncooperative subject. They could use it against you, or any bystander they choose. Every cop should always think as though every subject would take the gun if they could.
4. Bloodborne illness is a huge issue for cops, teachers, and medical personnel. Cops have it especially bad, since most of the time they're the most likely to be dealing with drug users, and people who are angry and combative. Every second you spend in a physical altercation with the subject is time that you could be exposing yourself to hepatitis, etc. No cop -- or human -- should have to shoulder that risk to accommodate an uncooperative subject.
5. If a subject is arrested, that's probably the last thing on his to-do list for the day. He's done. A cop, however, may need to be ready for the next threat. There may even be multiple subjects at the same incident. The cop needs a way to deal with one subject without exhausting him/herself, so that he/she can be ready to handle any emergent problems, too.
These are the kind of things that get cops treated as "lazy" pretty often... because we have this idea that just because this situation is over, the cop's day is done. Far from the case, ever. Those of us who haven't been in a lot of physical altercations are also not aware of how exhausting they can be... and also how chaotic they can get, and how hard it is to avoid injury. A subject has to undergo these risks once. The cop has to endure them every single time.
I was speaking in generalities. Not specifically relating to this situation.Chevalier noir said:
However, tasing the suspect in this particular instance was not in any way out of line. She was resisting arrest, and the officer stopped her. She wasn't shackled, so for all we know, she was making a hasty retreat. Cuffed or not, the officer had a responsibility to catch her (again), and he did his job. There was no way he could possibly have foreseen that she could die as a result of her being tased. Most subjects do not die when subjected to a taser - no matter what surface they fall on. This was a fluke. It's tragic, yes, but it's really not the officer's fault. If it's anyone's fault, it's fault of the cuffed suspect for attempting to escape capture. That was NOT a smart idea on her part.