The Cons of Technology in Law Enforcement

It is unquestionable that the advent of new technologies has been a boon to law enforcement in many ways. However, with each new gain, each new tool that makes it into the hands of an officer, there is a new drawback that comes along with it. Here, we will examine some of the flaws that inhibit the usefulness of two of the best-recognized items of law enforcement technology: the stun gun and the car-mounted video camera.

Non-Lethal Weapons

The stun gun is certainly a marvelous weapon. It allows an officer to subdue an aggressive or hostile person quite effectively with non-lethal force. The stun gun, unlike many other similar weapons, leaves little lasting impact on the subject. It does not break ribs, it does not trigger allergic reactions, and it does not cause blindness.

However, one side effect of the stun gun is that, because it uses a powerful electric current, it can, in some cases, trigger a heart attack or seizure. Also, if used improperly, it can kill; though, in all fairness, this can be said of any weapon. Likewise, this weapon is also one that can be taken away and used against an officer.

More to the point, though, the stun gun is of very limited usefulness in practice. Its biggest drawback, of course, is range. According to Lawrence Trostle, who quotes a 1986 conference held by the United States Department of Justice to discuss law enforcement applications of 'less than lethal weapons', in order to be useful, such a weapon must be "effective at a range of five to ten feet for close encounters and up to 25 yards for fleeing-suspect situations" (Trostle, 1990). A stun gun falls far short of that mark; an officer cannot use it to subdue anyone unless the officer is close enough for the electrodes to make contact.

Worse, public perception of all electrical neutralizing devices has taken a turn for the negative recently, as evidenced by the proliferation of "Don't tase me, bro!" apparel. To the general public, the taser and the stun gun are essentially the same thing, and both represent oppression and/or brutality, no matter the intent of the weapons.

Video

In-car video may not be all that it is hailed as either. According to an article in Police Quarterly, "Technology, policing, and implications of in-car videos;" "Video technology could deter abuses by officers, limit frivolous complaints against officers about alleged abuses, and help restore and build confidence in the fairness of police departments" (Maghan, O'Reilly, & Shon, 2002).

It is true that these devices do serve the purpose of informing the public, making up the bulk of several television shows, like Fox's Cops. They also provide a visual (and sometimes audio) record of police encounters, which can be invaluable evidence of what actually occurred in a contested situation. In a courtroom, for example, an officer armed with a patrol car's video has considerably less to fear from a defense attorney who might otherwise pose a challenge to the credibility of the officer's testimony.

However, a camera can also undermine an officer's testimony in the same way; the trouble comes from what a video doesn't show. For example, if a person an officer has pulled over, as part of a routine traffic stop, happens to draw a weapon on the officer, the camera will not necessarily capture that information. The camera will see, though, the officer drawing his own weapon in response. To an observing jury, it might seem that the officer instigated the confrontation that follows.

Furthermore, an officer who is aware of the presence of a camera will, in all likelihood, act differently than would be the case if one were not present. According to Maghan et al., when new video programs are initiated, many officers resist, believing that the cameras are tools meant primarily to spy on them, not to gather evidence. As a result, many officers may reject the instinct to 'go with their gut'. Alas, because intuition makes up a large component of establishing probable cause, many actual criminals might go unsearched because of the officers' fears where cameras are concerned.

In Conclusion

So, in the one case, we have a device meant to be an effective alternative to the application of lethal force. While it does fill the role of an alternative weapon, the 'effective' part is somewhat lacking; it will do its job, but only at very close range.

In the other case, we have a recording device meant to gather evidence. While it does do that, it can also interfere with the apprehension of criminals - the primary function of police - and, combined with the assumption of omniscience, often provides incomplete or misleading evidence.

It is important to remember that in every case where a new technology is introduced, while it brings with it a world of potential, it is not foolproof. Every advance also carries a consequence, and every improvement bears a cost. For any new technology to be used effectively, we must always bear in mind that every tool has its downside. Only by being aware of what can go wrong can we make a device work right.

References:

Maghan, J., O'Reilly, G., & Shon, P. (2002). Technology, policing, and implications of in-car videos. Police Quarterly (5) 1, p. 25-42. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from SAGE Publications database.

Trostle, L. (1990). The force continuum: From lethal to less-than-lethal force. Journal of contemporary criminal justice (6) 23. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from SAGE Publications database.