Stun Devices Open the Way to Abuse

The recent stunning of a defendant who was wearing a stun belt in a Los Angeles courtroom raises important questions about both the legal and moral guidelines that should accompany the use of the technology. Used in the right circumstances, these devices can be a preferred alternative to other weapons, but overuse and abuse must not be allowed to occur.

Stun belts are but the latest in a series of devices, including Tasers, stun guns, stun batons and stun shields, which work by applying a very high-voltage, low-amperage shock to a person. Although the shock is certainly physically painful, the real power of these devices lies in their ability to incapacitate muscle groups. The electrical pulse causes the muscles to expand and contract involuntarily at an extremely high rate, rendering them temporarily useless.

Stun belts are a particularly disturbing application of this technology for two reasons.

First, they don’t look like weapons; in fact, there is a lightweight model that can be worn under clothing and is not noticeable. They don’t sound like weapons, either. And there is not even a good verb like “shoot” to describe the administration of the shock; we are more likely to say that an “operator” has “activated” the belt.

Moreover, although their use leaves marks that last for months, the devices do not appear to cause permanent or even long-lasting physical harm. Indeed, stunning devices are considered so harmless that training courses in the use of them typically mandate that trainees be “stunned” several times themselves.

Second, once someone has been put in a belt, he is at the mercy of the person controlling it. As long as the operator is within range, he or she can, at no personal risk, administer an incapacitating shock. Resistance is futile.

It is precisely the implacability of these devices, combined with their benign appearance and even names, that makes them truly frightening. The Los Angeles case is instructive in this regard, not for pointing the finger of blame toward particular individuals, but for calling to our attention the way in which this seemingly harmless and totally effective device can be abused.

Despite protests to the contrary by Amnesty International and others, stun belts are appropriate in the courtroom if the person would otherwise be visibly constrained by shackles, which might affect how a jury responds to him or her.

Stun belts are appropriate in other situations as well. For example, when a dangerous inmate is taken to an outside medical facility, a stun belt is a highly effective way of protecting those with whom the prisoner comes in contact. And stun belts can provide greater protection for the prisoners themselves, as well as guards and bystanders. If one prisoner assaults another, for example, the assault can be quickly and effectively ended. The same could not be said for the use of clubs and, of course, if guns are used, there is greater danger to everyone.

Other situations are more troubling. Several states have reintroduced chain gangs and in some cases have restrained the convicts by means of stun belts. The danger here is that the use of stun belts makes a questionable practice somehow more palatable. Chain gangs in fact are usually not composed of the most violent of convicts, who are kept within prison walls. The rationale for chain gangs often seems to be one of public relations, so that the public feels that the prisoners are being treated harshly. In such instances, stun belts are used for political rather than penal goals, which is a misuse of this technology.

There is a further danger here, namely that the use of stun belts will gradually increase throughout the penal system. One could imagine the stun belt becoming a standard item for all prisoners. Of course, there are potential benefits; some prisoners would presumably be safer from assaults by other inmates. But what is frightening is that such a degree of control would not only lessen incentives to deal with legitimate grievances from prisoners, it would also open the door to widespread abuse and further loss of dignity for prisoners.

Basic morality suggests some guidelines for the manufacture, sale, deployment and activation of stun belts. They are weapons and should be designed in such a way as to record each discharge. There also should be a limit on the number of times they can be discharged during a day.

Also, sales of the belts should be limited to legitimate law enforcement agencies and penal institutions. This is particularly important in exporting this product.

In short, use of a stun belt should be restricted to situations where, if it is not worn, there is a strong likelihood of danger to others. And we should treat activation of the belts in the same manner that we treat the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer.

Seen in this context, the morality of the Los Angeles courtroom incident is easy to judge.