Killing is now a torture technique

“Taser” is a trade name for any of a range of stun guns used by law enforcement officers and soldiers to inflict non-lethal force. Now, a CBS report says the United Nations has described Tasers as a form of torture, after several deaths have been attributed to their use.

The UN has completely lost the plot, here, both on the facts and on PR.

First, torture is an interrogation technique in which pain or suffering is inflicted on a subject to persuade them to disclose information. It doesn’t extract very convincing confessions, but can force subjects to disclose other information, which may prove useful and may save lives. Either way, torture isn’t very useful at all if the subject dies. Killing is not the point of torture.

Second, Tasers are intended to subdue suspects, not kill them, nor to extract information. They are intended to incapacitate a subject. This is not torture, either in intent or effect. It does, however, make Tasers a useful alternative to guns, which deliver lethal force and imperil innocent bystanders. It also makes them useful as a weapon in situations where force is required, but lethal force is not justifiable. Of course, that Tasers sometimes turn out to be lethal is rather problematic. Of course, this problem must be addressed sooner rather than later, either by limiting their use to situations in which lethal force would normally be authorised, or by fixing them so the risk of killing a subject is much lower.

However, a simplistic label of “torture”, and a simplistic call for a ban on Tasers will leave law enforcement little choice but to revert to billy-clubs and guns as their only options. Is a beating with a billy-club really more palatable than a disabling electric shock, when administered to a suspect who resists arrest? Isn’t that “torture” too? And as for guns, some reports suggest that they’re even more lethal than Tasers.

Most importantly, however, rashly throwing about the word “torture”, without any apparent thought, dangerously devalues the term. With such shrill activism, fit only for the tabloid press, the UN is crying wolf. If it gets so hysterical on this issue, why would it attract serious attention when one day it raises the alarm over real torture? Is it any wonder so few people take the UN seriously these days?