EDITORIAL - Minimising deadly force

The announcement by National Security Minister Peter Bunting that he is considering the expansion of non-lethal weapons for police use has been hailed by one local human-rights group as a welcome move.

Although such a change will not ease the pain of the hundreds of Jamaicans who claim to have been victims of excessive police force, it could make a difference in the way the police do their job of serving and protecting the population.

The Jamaica Constabulary Force has long been tainted by accusations of excessive force. Almost every week in some community in Jamaica, citizens can be seen and heard demonstrating against police killings. It is a fact that brazen criminals have too often challenged the authority of the police with the use of deadly force. It could be argued that the police generally use force to demonstrate swift and superior strength to the criminals.

Seen through the eyes of the community, it is police brutality, but from the perspective of the police, they are acting in self-defence. And frequent citizens' complaints of police shooting young men in cold blood, often in inner-city communities, have helped to focus national attention on police excesses and extrajudicial killings.

Indeed, the time has long passed for the authorities to undertake a comprehensive review of policing policies and practices to determine ways of improving law enforcement.

We appreciate that the establishment of an independent body to investigate police use of force, as well as charges of misconduct against their members, is also another move in the right direction.

Justice delayed is justice denied

However, even when it has been determined that errant police officers are to be punished for violating citizens' rights, the cases take many years to be tried. This then becomes another source of outrage by citizens, for they know that justice delayed is justice denied.

For every case of excessive force by police personnel, there may be matching examples of remarkable restraint being exercised. The public is often not aware of these cases, and what they see are the excesses.

Mr Bunting must, therefore, be commended for seeking to find solutions to these troubling matters.

Taking into account the experience of areas where the use of non-lethal weapons have been introduced, there is need for caution. For example, a study undertaken in 2008 by the US federal government's National Institute of Justice found that stun guns can inflict serious and "potentially lethal" injury, though the study said such cases were rare.

The study examined two years' worth of records from six police departments, covering 962 uses of a taser stun gun. In 99.7 per cent of the cases, people were either not hurt or suffered minor injuries, mostly skin punctures from taser darts.

The conclusion by experts is that non-lethal weapons such as the taser can be as deadly as traditional weapons, and that the operators need to undergo rigid training in their use and deployment.

For organisations that see a silver lining in Mr Bunting's suggestion, this newspaper recommends that before we start celebrating, let's not forget that effective training and strong oversight are necessary to ensure that the police do their job effectively and efficiently. And it does not matter whether they are using traditional deadly force or less-lethal weapons.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.