¶ … Force by Police and Correctional Officers in the United States Today Beginning with the high-profile case of Rodney King in March 1991, the proliferation of cellular telephones equipped with cameras has resulted in an increasing number of video accounts by American citizens concerning the use of force against criminal suspects who are in many cases members of minority groups (Winright, 2007). Not surprisingly, this trend has also prompted calls for a review of current use of force methods employed by law enforcement agencies across the country. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature to identify the various methods used by police or correctional officers in overcoming resistance in arrest or control situations, taking into consideration the use-of force continuum, and to identify potential responses to "expected" or "unexpected" consequences from the pubic or judicial system as a result of employing such tactics. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning the use of force by police or correctional officers are presented in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis

Use of Force Methods Employed by Police and Correctional Officers

The use of force methods that have historically been employed by police and correctional officers span the use-of-force continuum (discussed further below), but in far too many cases, critics charge that these authorities tend to resort to the most forcible methods from the outset when confronted with criminal suspects, particularly those from minority groups. For instance, Elicker (2008) advises that, "The inappropriate use of force by police officers has received a serious discussion in the media and across the nation for some time" (p. 33). Indeed, Winright emphasizes that the widely publicized beating of Rodney King is the rule across the country rather than being the exception. In this regard, Winright notes that, "That beating was not unique in the history of policing. It probably has kin in every state in the Union, in every country, and indeed in every significant police force as far back as we can trace the police function" (2007, p. 38).

Use-of-force supporters counter that these law enforcement authorities are on the front line of the fight against crime and must have the power to exercise whatever amount of force they deem necessary in their professional judgment to protect themselves and American society (Elicker, 2008). Moreover, notwithstanding the increasing video accounts of excessive use of force by police officers, the reality of the situation is far different and these video accounts represent isolated incidents rather than an actual statistical trend. For example, according to Elicker, "Despite the way mass media presents the subject of police brutality, the occurrences of police use of force cases are not all that common" (2008, p. 34).

In fact, these assertions are backed up by solid statistical evidence. A study performed by the United States Department of Justice analyzed the facts in 7,512 arrest cases from six urban law enforcement agencies concerning the use of force by and against police officers. The results of this study showed that there were just 52 cases (representing 0.07%) in which police officers employed weapons as part of the arrest procedure (Elicker, 2008). The types of weapons used by police officers in these 52 cases included sticks, knives, handguns, chemical agents, rifles/shotguns, motor vehicles, canine units, and others (Elicker, 2008).

The results of the Department of Justice study also determined that in 1,184 (representing 15.8%) of the arrests, police officers employed one or more tactics that did not involve any weapons at all. These tactics included (a) grabbing, (b) arm twisting, (c) wrestling, (d) pushing/shoving, (e) hitting, (f) kicking, (g) biting/scratching, (h) use of pressure hold, (i) carotid hold, (j) control hold, and (k) other tactics (Elicker, 2008). Of these weaponless tactics, grabbing was used the most often (954 cases or 12.7%), with arm twisting (281 cases or 3.7%) and wresting (233 cases or 3.1%) representing the distant second and third most often used weaponless tactics (Elicker, 2008).

Police officers who encounter criminal suspects in the line of duty who must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction are faced with a far different situation than correctional officers who are charged with maintaining order in the nation's prison system. Correctional officers are routinely confronted by individuals who have already been convicted and sentenced for their offenses, and in many cases these were violent crimes (Kedir, 2006). In response to the need to provide correctional officers with some type of effective non-lethal use-of-force tactic, more than 8,000 correctional agencies in the U.S. have been evaluating the efficacy of Tasers (Kedir, 2006). In this regard, Kedir reports that, "Marketed as one of the safest and most effective use-of-force options available, Tasers reduce injury rates to officers and suspects, lower liability risk, and improve community security by providing a non-lethal alternative to the use of impact weapons or firearms" (p. 358)..

For instance, Isted (2006) report that law enforcement authorities typically apply the following escalating methods of force when in contact with a criminal suspect:
1. Verbal commands,

2. Handcuffing the suspect,

3. Searching the suspect,

4. Use of a wrist or arm lock,

5. Taking down the suspect,

6. Block, punch or kick the suspect,

7. Strike the suspect,

8. Wrestle the suspect,

9. Using pepper spray,

10. Using a baton,

11. Using their firearm,

12. Other tactics, and

13. Using multiple tactics (p. 115).

Similarly, the confrontational force continuum is comprised of seven escalating levels of force that are used to train police officers concerning the most appropriate level of force to use in any given situation. The confrontational force continuum begins with nondeadly force tactics that use physical efforts intended that are designed to control, restrain, or overcome the resistance of an individual and ending with deadly force which refers to any method that can be reasonably expected to result in the death of the suspect.(McCauley, 2005). The seven levels of the confrontational force continuum are set forth in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Confrontational force continuum

Category

Description

Officer presence

Police assume control of the suspect through their announced or uniformed presence.

Verbal command

Presence has failed; officers now begin verbal persuasion and, if needed, issue commands or warnings.

Open hand

Where practical, police place their hands on suspects and advise them that they are under arrest. Officers counter any resistance beyond this point. Often, wrestling, grabbing, or pushing occurs.

Pain compliance:

Police employ pressure-point control or pepper spray (which they sometimes may deem appropriate at level 3). This greater force could be justified when the officer encounters weapons, a larger suspect, multiple individuals, combative behavior, or persons under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

Mechanical compliance:

These methods usually involve physical tactics that employ counterjoint pressures and leverage, such as wrist locks, arm bars, or other "come along" techniques. Officers may apply them using handcuffs or the police baton.

Impact:

Police use impact weapons only when mechanical control methods prove ineffective or inappropriate. When practical, officers should direct blows to the soft-tissue areas, such as the backs of the legs or buttocks, prior to striking a joint or bone.

Deadly force:

Police resort to this ultimate step only to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury or to apprehend a forcible felon (after exhausting all other reasonable means) who presents an imminent risk to the community if not immediately detained.

Source: McCauley, 2005, p. 12

In addition, law enforcement authorities frequently use their patrol car lights or high-powered handheld and gun-mounted flashlights to temporarily blind criminal suspects at night (McCauley, 2005). Even these presumably harmless use-of-force tactics, though, have been criticized for preventing suspects from identifying the police officers who are wielding them ("anyone can carry a flashlight") and for causing long-term damage to the suspects' retinas (McCauley, 2005). Taken together, it is clear that police and correctional officers have a wide array of use-of-force methods available to them, but determining the most appropriate approach in a split second where lives may be at stake remains a highly challenging enterprise (McCauley, 2006).

Potential Responses to "Expected" or "Unexpected" Consequences to the Use of Force

It is also noteworthy that the Department of Justice study determined that criminal suspects fled on foot in 354 cases or in a car in 128 cases. According to Elicker, "Police use weaponless tactics or no force at all in the majority of cases, as well as using the less harmful tactics more frequently than those that could cause some more serious public outcry" (p. 35). Nevertheless, even when police and correctional officers do employ tactics that use non-lethal methods, there can be some serious unexpected consequences that are involved. For example, Kedir (2006) notes that, "The recent widespread use of Tasers, however, has not been without controversy. There remain concerns over health risks, the possibility of abuse, the lack of regulation, and the overall safety of Tasers" (p. 359).

A number of high-profile media reports and accounts by international organizations including Amnesty International have cited the fact that over 100 individuals have died after receiving Taser shocks since 2001 (Kedir, 2006). While autopsies of…