The Adoption of Less-Lethal Weapons - Case Study Example

Weapons and the Use of Force Name: Course: Tutor: Institution: Date: Introduction The global society is experiencing a changing social landscape with increased globalization and technology development. In this case, as Lauder (2006, p.25) argued, the fundamental globalization changes have led to a changing social culture globally such as perception of crime and criminals in the society. Traditionally, the global societies had a negative perception towards criminals who were perceived as outcasts. Consequently, the application and the use of force and firearms were authorized in most nations, allowing the police force to gun down and kill the respectively identified criminals. However, the rise of the civil societies and human right groups objected the adoption of this approach and instead, advocated for an alternative measure approaches such as the use of less lethal weapons instead of the conventional lethal weapons. Consequently, as the College of Policing (2015) described, since the inception of less lethal arms application, a majority of the nations globally, especially in Australia, Europe, and USA, has experienced increased police and public safety. As such, this essay develops a critical evaluation of the benefits accrued with the adoption of less-lethal weapons as well as the experienced challenges and approaches to mitigate them in the future. Less Lethal Weapons Gains Reduced Injuries The key ideological justification for the adoption of less lethal weapons was the need to reduce the high injury instances in the society. Initially, when the use of lethal weapons was a common norm in the police forces, there was an increasing risk of injuries both in the police force and to the public. On one hand, case of erroneous use of the weapons by irresponsible police officers led to increased instances of citizens and public injuries. For instance, Ayegun (2014) in a case study of Turkey noted that cases of stray bullets killing innocent citizens in the scene of police criminal shoot outs were a common phenomenon. In addition, some of the criminals managed to snatch some of the weapons from the police officers and consequently use the weapons against them causing bodily harm and injuries. However, the application of the less lethal weapons was based on reducing these challenges. In this regard, weapons such as stun guns that use electric shock to destabilize the targets and others, such as sprays to reduce their vision as well as force them the unconscious. In this regard, such weapons have minimal impacts on the targets as they have actual no known and established permanent side effects to users and targets (Rappert and Wright, 2000, p.479). Therefore, based on the on target approach on which the respondent has to be close to the target, considerably reduces the likelihood and risk of the third party injuries to other police officers and onto the public. Therefore, based on this strategic analysis and review it is apparent that the adoption of less lethal weapons use has invariably increased public safety. This is through a spontaneous reduction of third party injuries as well as police officer’s injuries, thus promoting the justification for increased use and application of less lethal weapons over lethal weapons in the society. Human Rights Respect As already discussed, one of the challenges in the application and use of lethal weapons in stopping criminals was the eventual injuries and even eventual deaths from such injuries. Although the use of force and lethal weapons is justifiable in extreme cases, it contravenes the rule of law as advocated international human rights advocate groups. In this case, the use of lethal weapons failed to allow the criminal suspects the opportunity to be represented in a court of law as per the rules and regulations dictate. In this case, through the application and of lethal weapons, the police officers were mandated to kill their suspects without a due legal procedure. Consequently, this provided opportunity and justification for extra-judicial killings where enemies and unwanted society members were executed and killed under the loophole of criminals’ elimination. In particular, as Stone (2006, p.389) noted, this challenge was evident in nations with political intolerance where society members with diverging views were executed unprocedulary. Human rights activists argued that the use of lethal weapons of crime suspects ignored the rule of law principle of the individual’s perception of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law. On the other hand, the use of less lethal weapons provided an opportunity for the rule of law, where all suspected criminals are subjected to a court process to prove their guilt. Consequently, this reduced instances of executions and increased killings by the police force on the population, both to the criminals and society third party members. Therefore, based on this analysis, it is evident that with the application and use of less lethal weapons and the subsequent application of the rule of law, has enhanced the apprehension of the human rights through reducing killings and executions by the police force (Schulzke, 2013, p.206). Thus, this analysis develops a conclusion that the use of less lethal weapons has increased society and police force safety. Citizens Empowerment The regulation of lethal arms was based on reducing the number of individuals holding and owning such weapons in the society. In this regard, the regulation was based on reducing society ownership by only licensing the police officers to hold such arms. However, this negated the role of the public in not only identifying criminals in the society, but also actively participating in crime reduction initiatives. Traditionally, as Bassey and Oshita (2010, p.146) argued that security was perceived as a preserve of the security forces with the citizens playing a perceived role in combating crime. Consequently, although the citizens were to experience and evidence a crime in progress, they had minimal ability to curb and prevent crime, for a lack of relevant tools and equipments. Nevertheless, the scenario changed with the advent and incorporation of less lethal weapons use. In this regard, weapons such as stun guns and sprays, due to their non-lethal status, are easily licensed and legal for the general public citizens to carry and possess. Therefore, the adoption and possession of these weapons have provided the public with increased opportunities to actively prevent crimes. Moreover, this has enhanced the concept of self-defense, where the respective society members, can individually defend themselves in the event of a crime. As Colonomos and Turner (2013, 94) stated, the enhancement of self-defense among society members through the adoption of the less lethal firearms has enabled the society not only enhance safety, but boost confidence through a feeling of security and safety. As such, this evaluation, analysis establishes that the use of less lethal weapons has improved societal safety and security on two fronts. One, the process and ability of the society to self-defense increases their safety, while secondly, the emotional and psychological satisfaction derived from owning such weapons increases individual perception on safety and security. Reduced Crime Rates Based on an analysis of the above implications and effects of less lethal weapons use, one conclusion can be deduced that all the implications and effects lead to the ultimate reduction in crime rates. For instance, the concept of human rights respect has ensured that there is increased law application in the society, through the prosecution and consequent punishing of criminals in the society. As such, this enabled the creation of a global legal system through which justice was administered, serving as a role model to discourage other potential criminal in the society (Haendschke, 2008, p.37). In addition, citizen empowerment has been cited as a key and significant tool in reducing crime rates in the society. On one hand, self-defense through the less lethal weapons has reduced the rate of petty crimes in the society considerably. On the other hand, with increased citizens’ active participation in combating crime has increased citizen vigilance through the creation of a positive perception of the police force has increased safety and security globally. One such avenue is through increased citizen policing practices where the society works jointly with the law agencies in combating crime. Thus, this is achieved with the application of the less lethal weapons and subsequent legal process in witnessing and evidence provision in courts of law (Alexander, 1999, p.45). Therefore, this evaluation establishes that the bottom line log term effect for the adoption and application of force and less lethal weapons has enhanced reduced crime rates and safety improvements globally. Challenges Despite the noted merits and achievements of the application of less lethal weapons in increasing citizen and police officers safety through reducing crime rates in the society, the approach adoption has its share of challenges. Therefore, this essay section develops an evaluation of the key challenges the approach has faced, offering improvement recommendations for each respectively. Citizens and Police Officers Injury One of the major challenges and risks of applying and using less lethal weapons is the risk of citizen's injury and hard by the criminals. Unlike the police officers who have skills and experience on how to defend themselves, besides the less lethal weapons, citizens lack additional skills for self-defense. In this case, a majority of the less lethal weapons such as the electric shock guns well as the sedation sprays require the citizens to be on a close range with the criminals. As such, this places them at an increased exposure risk in that the criminals might result in increased violence use. In this case, unlike the citizens who abide and follow the law against the possession of lethal weapons, criminals often possess these arms. Thus, the likelihood of exposing the citizens to an increased harm threat if they tried to use the less lethal weapons. Similarly, this poses a security and safety threat to the security officers who lack such lethal weapons possessed by the criminals they face. As such, Bulman (2010) stated that in order to counter this challenge, it is imperative that the police officers are empowered to possess and carry the lethal weapons as well. However, a legal regulation should be developed that the standard weapons for combating crimes remain the less lethal weapons, but in the event that the criminal possess lethal weapons and poses a security threat to either the officers of the public at large, officers should be at liberty to use their lethal arms. In addition, upon use of such arms, officers should offer a justification for their use, failure to which they would be liable for a weapons misuse offense as per the legal provisions on weapons use. Side Effects Although current evaluation statistics does not indicate any side effects on the use of the less lethal weapons, criticism has been evidenced and developed over the years. Of critical concern has been the environmental and health implications of the less lethal chemical weapons such as the sedation spray commonly used (Murgado, 2013). In this case, it is argued that such sprays and electric shock guns could have lasting side effects implications of the affected individuals as well as the third parties in the crime scenes. Consequently, this has led to the need to review the environmental implications of such chemical sprays as well as health implications such as allergies among others into the future as a measure to ensure safety into the future. Conclusion In summary, this essay offers an evaluation of the application of less lethal weapons, and the benefits gained while acknowledging the challenges and approach to overcoming them. On one hand, under the less lethal weapon benefits of increasing safety, justification for this assertion is based on increased citizen empowerment in active involvement in combating crime, increased rule of law n as well as enhances third party injury reduction. However, the application of this approach has its share of challenges such as the listed unknown side effects on individual health and the environment, as well as the risk of increased harm to the citizens and police officers, as the criminals could be using lethal weapons against them, as they are under no legal obligation on arms possession. However, based on the above analysis, the essay develops a conclusion that despite the execution challenges discussed, the use of less lethal weapons has promoted increased safety to both police officers and the society at large. Reference College of Policing, 2015, Use of force, firearms and less lethal weapons, [Online] Available at < http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/armed-policing/use-of-force-firearms-and-less-lethal-weapons/> [Accessed January 15, 2015]. Bulman, P., 2010, Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics, National Institute of Justice. [Online] Available at < http://www.nij.gov/journals/267/pages/use-of-force.aspx> [Accessed January 15, 2015]. Lauder, R;, 2006, Education, globalization, and social change, Oxford University Press, Oxford Ayegun, G, 2014, Can ’stray bullets’ be deemed innocent? Todays Zaaman, [Online] Available at < http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/gunay-hilal-aygun_345943_can-stray-bullets-be-deemed-innocent.html> [Accessed January 15, 2015]. Rappert, B. & Wright, S. 2000, "A flexible response? Assessing non-lethal weapons", Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 477-492. Stone, R. 2006, "Police powers and human rights in the context of terrorism", Managerial Law, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 384-399. Schulzke, M. 2013, "Autonomous Weapons and Distributed Responsibility", Philosophy & Technology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 203-219. Bassey, C. O., & Oshita, O. O., 2010, Governance and border security in Africa, Malthouse Press Ltd. for the University of Calabar Press, Lagos. Colonomos, A., & Turner, C., 2013, The gamble of war: Is it possible to justify preventive war?, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire Haendschke, E., 2008, "Adding Less-Lethal Arrows to the Quiver for Counterinsurgency Air Operations", Air & Space Power Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 33-43. Alexander, J.B. 1999, "Nonlethal weapons: When deadly force is not enough", The Futurist, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 34-38. Murgado, A, March 6, 2013, Less-Lethal Weapon Options, Police Weapons. [Online] Available at < http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/03/less-lethal-weapon-options.aspx> [Accessed January 15, 2015]. Read More