Stunning morality: The moral dimensions of stun belts

Abstract

Introduction O.J. was supposed to wear one on the visit to the crime scene, but he did not. Along with striped uniforms, they are supposed to be standard attire in chain gangs in several states, although they have been outlawed in others. They are often part of a defendant's outfit in court and in visits to medical facilities. Introduced in the early 1990s as a variant on stun guns and stun shields, the stun belt is becoming increasingly popular among prison and correctional officers as a safe way of controlling potentially unruly prisoners. Stun belts raise a number of interesting moral issues, in part because, for some of us, they call forth conflicting moral intuitions. On the one hand, there is something about them that appeals to a sense of what one might call moral efficiency. They hold out the promise of controlling potentially violent behavior at a minimal cost: they are very painful and incapacitating in the instant, but, according to defenders, leave no serious long-term aftereffects. They offer to protect innocent bystanders, such as observers in a courtroom, with nearly 100 percent efficiency and no danger to others. There are no stray bullets or wildly swinging nightsticks. On the other hand, there is something morally frightening about them. Amnesty International has requested that they be banned.(1) They are so efficient, so implacable, that their power scares us. No one can run from them. There is virtually no contest between the operator and victim. The operator simply presses a button, and the effect is instantaneous and completely incapacitating--yet apparently without any long-term effects. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that stun belts are presented to the public as an instance of moral progress. Just as the guillotine was promoted as because of its efficiency and the way in which it reduced suffering, so too is the stun belt promoted for its efficiency and allegedly humane quality. Let us begin with a short consideration of the facts of the case: what stun belts are, how they work, and so forth. Then we will look more closely at the case in favor of the use of stun belts before turning to the arguments against them. I will conclude with comments on the range of situations in which they are morally permissible. Stun Belts: The Basics History Stun technology began with cattle prods and electrified fences, devices used to issue a brief electrical shock to control animals. Stun guns and Tasers(2) paved the way for the stun belt, but the operator has to be close enough--in the case of stun guns to the subject to press the electrodes onto the subject's body or--in the case of Tasers--to be able shoot the electrodes into the subject. Stun batons, a variation of the stun gun, have become the instrument of choice for torture in many countries because they inflict such a high degree of pain but leave comparatively few signs of the extent of the torture. Stun shields were the next step, and they allowed persons in close proximity to potentially violent individuals to protect themselves. Anyone touching the stun shield would experience the same kind of shock that comes from a stun gun. Finally, stun belts came on the scene. They had many of the alleged advantages of the earlier technology but carried no risk to the operator. Once someone is wearing a stun belt, the shock can be administered remotely from up to 300 feet away. Stun belts, which are manufactured in the United States by Stun Tech, Inc. of Cleveland, have become increasingly popular with law enforcement agencies. Dennis Kaufman, the president of Stun Tech, reports that he has sold over 1,100 to various law enforcement and penal agencies, including two hundred to the U.S. Marshal's Service and one hundred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.(3) Wisconsin and Queen Anne's County in Maryland(4) are now using them in chain gangs, joining Alabama, Arizona, Florida, and Iowa. …