Interesting article

Law Dog, I also very much appericate all of the info that you bring into this forum as it is very informative and helpful, again thank you for all you are doing to bring an awareness to us all.

I for one am truely thankful when ANYONE brings articles to my attention. I dont surf the web looking for stuff, so its all new to me!

I simply dont have the time to surf due to the fact that I chose to spend my time writing long letters to each of my many friends.

So to all those, such as LAWDOG who bring these educational articles to this Forumn (which is wot this forumn is for!!!) I say THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for being so thoughful!

Lots of love to u all!

hey now im offened leave the "wolf" outta this one :) LOL

I have found that a lot of the information that comes out of Amnesty International is very biased.

I agree that we are crying wolf. Did you ever hear the studies that the stuff in diet sodas will kill you eventually? The mice were fed something like the equivilent of 100 cans of soda a day of the phenylalanine. But when it is in the media-that point isn't made. The point is that no matter what is reported, the most extreme cases are going to be widely known, but how often do they really say how many had the positive effect? And how often do the benefits outweigh the risks? How many victims of the crimes of the people wearing the belts self deficated and urinated on themselves when the crime was occuring? Does anyone report that?

As a side note, I'd also point out that, for example, in Los Angeles County, California, the belt has been placed on approximately 200 detainees, at more than a thousand court proceedings. It has been activated on three people, once apparently
by accident.

This is a matter of record.

Are we "crying wolf" ?

we dont need your comment law dog, we can all read self

I have read the article, which is actually quite good, albeit somewhat outdated (1999). There has been a great deal of controversy over the use of these types of devices for many years. Unfortunately, there is a very fine line between control/restraint of the "accused", and outright punishment. In the hands of ANY person (not just law enforcement) such devices are subject to abuse.

There isn't much difference between the abuses of this kind of device, and the abuses of other such instruments of control and/or combat often wielded by law enforcement. Batons, handcuffs, pepper spray, and even guns have been purposely introduced at times and under circumstances where they shouldn't be.

Quite frankly, I don't believe the focus should be on the "instrument", but rather on the USE of it. In other words, attack the SOURCE, not the SYMPTOM. It's true that what we see here is horrendous, and unaccptable. It is also, quite honestly, less frequent than it is made to appear.

In many recent court decisions, the use of the "stun belt" has been specifically addressed, for a variety of reasons. For example, in CHAVEZ v. COCKRELL, 02-10050 (5th Cir. 2002), Chavez argues that he was denied the presumption of innocence and the
right to an impartial jury when the "stun belt" that he was forced to wear during trial inadvertently activated in the presence of the jury. Based on testimony from multiple sources indicating that
Chavez was planning to escape during his trial by disarming an officer and shooting his way out of the building, the trial judge approved the use of a stun belt on Chavez. When the stun belt inadvertantly activated, shocking Chavez in the presence of the jury, he moved for a mistrial, based on a lack of impartiality. A thorough investigation found that almost none of the jurors had any clue as to what had happened, and most were not aware that he was wearing the stun belt. It was also determined that the belt had malfunctioned, and was not activated by any person.

The appellate court ruled that Chavez had failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to impartiality, and therefore DENIED his request for a Certificate of Appealability.

IN CONTRAST:

U.S. v. DURHAM, 287 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002)

Jeffery Scott Durham appealed his conviction on multiple counts of armed bank robbery, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Durham argues that his due process and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was forced to wear a restraining device referred to as a "stun belt" during his trial. After reviewing the briefs and the record, and after the benefit of oral argument, the appellate court found that the district court did not make findings on the record sufficient to justify the use of this
extraordinary security measure. Therefore, Durham's conviction was vacated and
the case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings consistent
with the appellate court's opinion.

It's clear that almost ANY situation is subject to various interpretations, depending on the circumstances involved. Each case has its own "personality", if you will, and must be decided based on those variations of fact.

I would also point out that the Amnesty International article seriously misquotes the procedural document that they refer to which governs the use of the stun belt. I have personally READ that document, and much of what they claim to be an authorized use of the stun belt, in fact, IS NOT.

The actual written policy permits activation of the belt (i.e. stunning
the wearer) under the following circumstances:

— Any attempt to escape or to assault the Court, courtroom staff, deputies or spectators.

— To prevent any battery or physical injury from being inflicted upon the Court, courtroom staff, deputies or spectators.

— Any attempt to remove the belt or other physical restraints.

— A facially valid court order issued by a Presiding Judge.

The policy requires that warnings be given where and when possible and that the prisoner receive immediate medical treatment after activation of the belt.

My point here is that, if Amnesty International, or any other group is going to criticize, the facts should not be skewed, as they were here, to sensationalize something that really isn't as prevalent as you would believe.