Centro de Documentação da PJ
Monografia
 CD200 |
Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies that have deployed Conducted Energy Devices and a matched comparison group that have not [Documento electrónico] : a quasi-experimental evaluation / Bruce Taylor .. [et al.].- Washington, D.C. : Police Executive Research Forum, 2009.- 1 CD-ROM ; 12 cm
Research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. Award ner. 2006-IJ-CX-0028. Resumo inserto no próprio documento. Ficheiro de 1,84 MB em formato PDF (100 p.). Disponível também através de: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237965.pdf. Acedido a 22 de maio de 2012.
ESTUDO DE CASOS, ARMA NÃO LETAL, USO DE FORÇA, TÉCNICA POLICIAL, TÉCNICA DE IMOBILIZAÇÃO, POLÍCIA, APLICAÇÃO DA LEI
"How law enforcement agencies (LEAs) manage the use-of-force by officers is perhaps one of the most important tasks that they will undertake. One weapon that has been advanced as a way to reduce injuries for officers and suspects is the Conducted Energy Device (CED). The purpose of our project, conducted from late 2006 to 2008, was to produce scientifically valid results that will inform LEA executives’ decisions regarding CED use. The goal of our study was to produce practical information that can help LEAs establish guidelines that assist in the effective design of CED deployment programs that support increased safety for officers and citizens. We conducted one of the first quasi-experiments to compare LEAs with CED deployment (n=7) to a set of matched LEAs (n=6) that do not deploy CEDs on a variety of safety outcomes, controlling for a variety of incident factors (force used by officer, time frame of incident, suspect race/gender/age, suspect resistant behavior, and suspect weapon use) and agency-level factors (agency policy on CEDs, size/density of LEA, and population density for jurisdiction). For the LEAs that deployed CEDs, we collected two years of data before CED deployment and two years of data after CED deployment. For the non-CED sites, we collected four years of data over a similar period. Overall, we found that the CED sites were associated with improved safety outcomes when compared to a group of matched non-CED sites on six of nine safety measures, including reductions in (1) officer injuries, (2–3) suspect injuries and severe injuries, (4–5) officers and suspects receiving injuries requiring medical attention, and (6) suspects receiving an injury that resulted in the suspect being taken to a hospital or other medical facility. (We refer to this last category as “hospitalization,” although we have no data on the extent to which officers or suspects who went to a hospital or other medical facility were admitted and stayed overnight, as opposed to simply receiving an evaluation or treatment and being released.) Also within CED agencies, in some cases the actual use of a CED by an officer is associated with improved safety outcomes compared to other less-lethal weapons. For five of the eight comparisons, the cases where an officer used a CED were associated with the lowest or second lowest rate of injuries, injuries requiring medical attention, or injuries officer was taken to a medical facility such as hospital or medical clinic for treatment of an injury due to a use of- force incident requiring “hospitalization” (see comment in previous paragraph). There were no differences between the CED and the non-CED sites on the outcomes of the number of suspect deaths, officer severe injuries, and officer injuries requiring hospitalization. The evidence from our study suggests that CEDs can be an effective weapon in helping prevent or minimize physical struggles in use-of-force cases. LEAs should consider the utility of the CED as a way to avoid up-close combative situations and reduce injuries to officers and suspects."