Questions raised after electroshock belt used at Texas murder trial

I posted this story because it highlights the paradox that decreasing the lethality of weapons increases the risk that they will be abused.

The purpose of the electroshock belt is to protect people in the courtroom if a situation arises in which the defendant poses a risk of imminent violence. Before the adoption of that technology, the machine employed for the same purpose was the bailiff's firearm.

It would be unthinkable for a judge to order the bailiff to shoot a defendant for refusing to stand up while addressing the court. But this judge apparently deemed it acceptable to torture the defendant by administering a five-second electric shock that made him writhe and scream in front of the jury.

The judge's behavior was a gross abuse of power, and I'm not saying we should eliminate this technology. Electroshock belts seem valuable for a number of reasons, including the fact that they allow fewer defendants to be tried in full restraints, which may prejudice jurors.

Nevertheless, the entire sequence of events offers a chilling case study about the unintended side effects of decreasing the negative consequences that result from using force.