Stun Belts in Court

> County officers authorized to use stun cuffs are required to go through training and are only allowed to use them “to overcome active resistance” or when “active aggression is an immediate or credible threat to the safety of the deputy(s), the public” or the defendant, Christian wrote in an email.

...

> “If I’m sitting here, I’m no security threat,” Calvert said, according to court records cited in an appeal later filed by Calvert’s lawyer.

> “I’m not talking a security threat,” Skeen replied. “I’m talking about you listening to me.”

> Later, Skeen ordered Calvert to sit down and then, a moment later, to answer a question. When Calvert again failed to stand up to address the judge, an officer activated the device, according to court records.

So. This officer who activated the device. What happened to them? Have they been reprimanded? Criminally charged? Are they still given the ability to shock defendents in Smith County courts?

I think the disturbing question that this brings up is: Given that so many judges are willing to abuse stun belts and turn them into a morbid torture device, how can we trust these people to adequately decide important criminal cases. In my opinion, the answer in an alarmingly many number of cases is we can't.

This could be solved quickly if we require the prosecutor and criminal lawyer or self represented defendant to agree on a judge before going to trial. If there are judges out there that very few of one side or the other is willing to agree to, those judges should be reviewed for making biased decisions and be at risk of losing their judgeship. Or we could pay judges by the number of cases they get and hope the ones who don't get many agreements will go away on their own.

This can be a workable system: Just require that the parties keep going if their first choice is not available. For example: we could have 6 judges at random and give each party 3 vetoes to get rid of judges they don't want. We could even just let the parties choose a judge and only have the court intervene when they are unable to select a judge who is available in a reasonable amount of time. I can almost guarantee that the fear of random choice will make most litigants cooperate to pick a good judge.

In any case, the current system of having old lawyers with almost no accountability be judges is wanting.

My 6 year old son and I have constant battles when I correct him for poor choices. He will do the same types of things they described in this article, interrupting, being rude. It's what people in a place with no other options do.

My choices are to escalate and spank or hit him. I've never done that.

He always hears what I say. In the moments of greatest conflict when I'm sure he is ignoring what I'm saying I know he hears it all, because he uses the same techniques on his sisters weeks later, verbatim.

These judges are in a position of power. What they say will be supported and enforced by the massive system all around them. These defendants might pretend to ignore it, but they will hear what is being said.

These judges want to make sure they are being paid respect, and are willing to do something barbaric to achieve that. But, worse than anything this is really stupid because they will provide an avenue for someone who might actually have committed a crime to find a way out. This is pure stupidity and arrogance on the part of the judges. They are putting their own arrogance over the due process of law.

Even if the stun belts were banned, these malicious judges would still have significant power to harm people via their authority. A judge that would shock a person to punish them for non-violent disobedience cannot be trusted to decide matters of law fairly.

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Can anyone, devil's advocate or otherwise, argue that the use of these belts does not constitute torture under international law?

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx

I had no idea this was happening in todays world, it is utterly barbaric. To be electrocuting someone constantly throughout their trial, it is so saddening to see society get to this point.

> A Maryland judge was ousted from office for shocking a defendant who did not stop talking when asked, leaving the man hollering on the ground in pain while the court took a recess.

The video of the shock is linked in the article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYfzrof2g4o

It's much more jarring that just reading the description of the event. How can we organize our society to ensure these events are never incentivized to happen?

THE COURT: YOU ARE WEARING A VERY BAD INSTRUMENT, AND IF YOU WANT TO FEEL IT, YOU CAN, BUT STOP INTERRUPTING.

MR. HAWKINS: YOU ARE GOING TO ELECTROCUTE ME FOR TALKING?

THE COURT: NO, SIR, BUT THEY WILL ZAP YOU IF YOU KEEP DOING IT. THE DEFENDANT ALSO ALLEGES THAT THE COURT HAS AN EX PARTE CONTACT WITH THE D.A. THAT IS NOT TRUE, AND I AM NOT AWARE THAT THIS DEPUTY D.A. —

MR. HAWKINS: THE TRANSCRIPT WILL REFLECT THAT.

THE COURT: ONE MORE TIME. ONE MORE TIME. GO AHEAD.

MR. HAWKINS: THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (AT THIS TIME THE BELT WAS ACTIVATED.) * * *

...

MR. HAWKINS: I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN VERY UNFAIR. I THINK THESE ELECTRONIC SHOCKS TO ME WITHOUT DISPLAYING ANY VIOLENT BEHAVIOR — I THINK IT IS VERY IN-HUMANE ON YOUR PART.

THE COURT: SIR, THERE WAS ONLY ONE BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO OBEY MY ORDER TO STOP INTERRUPTING ME. SO DON'T MISSTATE THE RECORD. THERE WAS ONLY ONE, NOT PLURAL.

MR. HAWKINS: BUT FOR A VERBAL INTERRUPTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES, SIR, THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

MR. HAWKINS: THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THING IS DESIGNED FOR. YOU ARE OVERSTEPPING YOUR AUTHORITY.

THE COURT: NO. SIR, ANYTHING ELSE?

Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1232 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001)

Why make these devices be manually triggered by someone? The first thing I thought of is if you "had" to have a shock system in place, why not make it like an "invisible fence" for a dog. I get wanting to protect everyone in the court but having this be manually triggered will always lead to abuse.

It would only trigger if the person in question were to actually attempt to harm another and leave their designated area or if they somehow raised their voice higher than a set dB level (Dog barking shock collar type).

Obviously have manual override to turn it OFF when it malfunctions but do not let someone manually be able to turn it ON.

Not advocating for treating people like dogs, however this would be more reactionary to a situation rather than leaving the control be in the hands of a person who may make decisions based on personal preference or emotion.

How can you possibly have a fair trial this way? It's impossible. I hope this guy wins his appeal. It's incredible that the courts are now more despicable than a murderer and kidnapper in their practices. Let's skip the jury and have the judge administer punishment, even death. Right there in front of everyone. And why? Because the court officers can't restrain one person? What kind of officers are these? They can't keep one person in line? Then fire them. Get someone who can. That's their whole fucking job. What a bunch of weak, useless cowards who would rather torture a man than do their fucking job. Of course the job is dangerous. That's what these cowards signed up for.

Taken to its full extension, when could we see an attempt to include electrocution with ankle monitor systems for bailees, or parolees.

Why do they keep calling the pain belt a stun belt?

Judge should be fired. The fact that he is still practising shows the crookedness of the American legal system. It's fine for a judge to have such a tool, but to use it in this way is unacceptable.

The root of these and similar problems is that agents of the state are not held accountable to the people.

Ideally the judge, DA, etc would be also be equipped with stun cuffs and then members of the jury may activate them whenever unconstitutional behavior occurs.

I’m motivated by always have enough money for representation and representation through appeals court

A general, perpetual socioeconomic exemption

I wish journalists would learn how much more persuasive they can be if they are matter-of-fact. The particulars of this triggered my skepticism in the 4 paragraphs following "Heightening the tension...", and I assumed that important details were being left out, and that there was some sort of scuffle, etc., going on, leading to the shock.

In fact, reading the appeal, the fact pattern looks very bad for the court. The man was shocked mid-sentence as he spoke while sitting down. There appears to have been no scuffle.

So I'm fairly convinced now, but no thanks to this article trying to be "persuasive."

I'm fine with this. If you can't behave yourself in court, you get a zap. Either that or a bailiff cracks you over the head with a club.

It's amazing how effective corporal punishment is even past childhood years. Singapore has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, but act out there and you'll get a caning.