New technologies have been introduced to law enforcement agencies which are touted as having the capacity to enhance the functions of line officers who are confronted with violent suspects or the necessity of collecting evidence regarding potential offenses. These technologies include but are not limited to stun guns or tasers and patrol car video surveillance mechanisms. This essay will argue that despite some legitimate concerns regarding these technologies they should be used by law enforcement because they enhance the capacity of police and other authorities to fulfill their mission of serving and protecting the public.
Stun guns are used by police officers to temporarily immobilize a suspect whose behavior is regarded as threatening (Futch, 2008). These weapons are not simply handed out to officers; they must undergo a certification process that includes a training course in which they are likely to be hit by a stun gun. Futch (2008) claims that this type of training helps to ensure that officers will be cognizant of the very real dangers associated with these weapons.
In fact, Jordan Schrader (2008) reported that stun guns are used by more than 12,700 U.S. law enforcement and military agencies and most of these agencies have clearly delineated written policies on their use. Concerns regarding the potential for serious injury and death have led law enforcement agencies to call for the careful scrutiny of their ruse and strict oversight of all incidents in which a taser is used. Policies addressing issues such as when it is appropriate to use stun guns or to use them more than once on a person are being developed and implemented in order to curtail potential abuses of the technology.
Jessica Marshall (2007) stated that more than 50 cases of wrongful death or injury have been brought against Taser International, one of the primary manufacturers of these weapons. The case of Andrew Meyer, a University of Fl...