Tasers, torture?

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I said earlier I think there's a slim semantic difference. Electric shocks exactly like the one delivered by tasers are used by torturers because they are a convenient way to cause extreme pain. Tasers when pressed against the flesh of the target are nothing more or less than a convenient way to cause extreme pain to the target until they do what you tell them to.

I think you've misunderstood my post. The amount of pain delivered is not the reason I'm saying that police using a taser to apprehend a suspect is not torture. It's not torture because it doesn't fit the definition of torture (that is, the victim is not already in custody or control and the intentional infliction of severe pain is not being done for the purpose of extracting information, a confession or as punishment). Note: I'm certainly not saying a taser (or any other force) is necessarily always justified and legal in the apprehending a suspect situation. But that particular problem is not one that invokes the laws against torture.

If the taser is used in circumstances where the victim is already in custody and is the intentional infliction of severe pain for the purpose of extracting information, a confession or as punishment, then it is torture. In the OP the story linked to was specifically about the use of tasers in a prison. That may well be torture.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just about anything can be used to torture someone. You could use a sock, if you wished.

I didn't say "could be used to torture someone" I said "is torture"; that is, the very act of using the device on a person constitutes torture, irrespective of the circumstances.

There's a profound difference in these two observations, and the UN report is clearly making the second observation, not the first.

The U.N. most definitely did not say that any use of the taser "is torture". Their report on New Zealand wrt to the use of tasers (in prisons, btw) was more like the first thing you said. They said that the way tasers are being used there might be torture.

From the article linked in the OP

The severe pain they caused could be seen as a form of torture

 

[Bikewer]

Note that police all over the world have (and continue to...) use all manner of things with which to torture individuals in custody.
Just from my experience (started in 1968), the most common was simply beating the individual. The infamous phone-book-on-top-of-the-head left no marks.... Neither did being held headfirst in a flushing toilet.
Or being sprayed with a fire hose while in the cell, followed by having the air conditioning turned up.
Wambaugh gives a graphic description of the use of Coca-Cola by Mexican authorities. Around the world, more direct and brutal methods are often employed.

Point being...Torture is easily managed and has been used by both civil and governmental authorities for thousands of years. Ingenuity in it's application has resulted in a wide variety of methods that leave little evidence. In more totalitarian regimes, this may not be a concern.

The Taser is designed to incapacitate individuals who are out of control. The alternative is to use methods which are far more dangerous to the individual, and to the officers as well.
That the device could conceivably be used as a torture device is undeniable, but it is not designed as such, and in fact incorporates a number of measures designed to prevent that. (internal monitoring software, "aphid" markers)

 

[gumboot]

The U.N. most definitely did not say that any use of the taser "is torture".

I didn't say they did. I said they said that any use of a taser could be seen as torture.

Their report on New Zealand wrt to the use of tasers (in prisons, btw) was more like the first thing you said.

Please read my posts. The report is about tasers being issued to New Zealand police. New Zealand police do not run prisons. There is no plan to arm Corrections Officers (who do run prisons) with tasers. You're wrong. Period.

Further, Corrections Regulations 2005 stipulate that the only form of non-lethal weapon permitted for use by Corrections Officers is a baton. Very specific limitations are put on the size, weight, and material of the baton, and the Regulations explicitly state that the baton must not discharge any electricity. Further, currently the Department of Corrections does not possess any batons, and therefore although allowed, no batons are used. Or to put it another way, currently no weapons of any kind are used in NZ prisons by prison staff.

They said that the way tasers are being used there might be torture.

From the article linked in the OP

Wrong. They said tasers, because they cause severe pain or even death can be seen as toture. Not "tasers when used in X way". Just tasers. Full stop. They're saying the use of a taser is torture. No context.

For some more context on the use of Tasers in New Zealand. Tasers will actually face more stringent oversight than firearms. Every taser will be fitted with a camera which will record video and audio of every use of the taser. Taser will not be carried on a normal basis, but rather officers requiring a taser for a specific incident will be required to gain permission to take one with them.

Additional reporting will be required whenever a taser is used, and the same threat assessment requirements exist as for the use of firearms.

During the 12 month taser trial, a taser was presented at an incident 128 times, but only discharged 19 times.

(It is worth noting the small number of discharges as it undermines the committee's concern at the ethnicity of those targetted - being such a small sample size, making assumptions about ethnic bias are not particularly useful).

 

[Bikewer]

Note that it's fairly common for an individual spotting the bright red laser pinpoint on his body to surrender....Rather than be Tasered.

 

[gumboot]

Note that it's fairly common for an individual spotting the bright red laser pinpoint on his body to surrender....Rather than be Tasered.

As per the police Taser trial report, in 110 instances the "presentation mode" was sufficient to resolve the situation. This involved three levels:

1. Presenting the taser
2. Use of the red laser spot
3. "Arcing" or firing the taser with the air cartridge removed as a visual threat

There were two instances in which police felt, had a taser not been available, the offender would have been shot.

So the taser trial alone saved two lives.

Not bad going.

ETA.

Interestingly enough, one of the biggest concerns officers had when giving feedback on the trial is that officers might become too reliant on the taser, and use it in situations where a firearm should be used, thus endangering police and the public.