Is the Assault Intervention Device Ethical for Use in Jails?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SixNein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Device
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
8 replies · 5K views
SixNein
Gold Member
Messages
122
Reaction score
19
I would not agree with this device being used over seas much less in our own jail systems.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_jail_ray_gun


Why don't we just launch an inquisitor program?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
russ_watters said:
How is it different, ethically, from pepper spray? And what does it have to do with an "inquisitor program"?

I don't think it has anything to do with an inquisitor program, but I wanted to over-exaggerate to get the comments rolling =p

Should a device with these capabilities be deployed in jails? I would argue maybe to prisons, but I'm not sure it belongs in jails.

According to a blog at wired, a test person was seriously injured by the device:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/aclu-blasts-jailhouse-pain-ray-condemns-star-wars-tech/

But they may have fixed it?
 
If the device is deployed, eventually, it will end up being used to scatter protesters

First, that's not obvious at all. But let's assume so.

As opposed to dropping tear gas and beating people into submission? Explain why this is worse because there is a small risk of being burned. And the test subject who was burned was burned because of the device being turned to a too powerful level (beyond what it was supposed to be set to for the scenario in question)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/danger_room.PDF
 
SixNein said:
Should a device with these capabilities be deployed in jails? I would argue maybe to prisons, but I'm not sure it belongs in jails.

According to a blog at wired, a test person was seriously injured by the device:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/aclu-blasts-jailhouse-pain-ray-condemns-star-wars-tech/

But they may have fixed it?
Fixed what? Was it broken? Yes, I think it should be used in jails. But I won't explain until you do: this is your thread and it is your responsibility to get the discussion going by explaining your point.
 
Office_Shredder said:
First, that's not obvious at all. But let's assume so.

As opposed to dropping tear gas and beating people into submission? Explain why this is worse because there is a small risk of being burned. And the test subject who was burned was burned because of the device being turned to a too powerful level (beyond what it was supposed to be set to for the scenario in question)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/danger_room.PDF

They must have released some details on the issue. I'm still reading up on it.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
Fixed what? Was it broken? Yes, I think it should be used in jails. But I won't explain until you do: this is your thread and it is your responsibility to get the discussion going by explaining your point.

I couldn't find any details on the accident outline in the story, but the poster before you had found one. Apparently, someone set the device too high and caused the test subject to have 2nd degree burns. Apparently, the device had been used by untrained people and without all of the proper equipment.

So the story is much to do about nothing.
 
Last edited:
SixNein said:
I don't think it has anything to do with an inquisitor program, but I wanted to over-exaggerate to get the comments rolling =p
You know that's called "trolling", right?
 
Hurkyl said:
You know that's called "trolling", right?

When the story first came out, the story was exaggerated with comments like "noting that early military versions resulted in five airmen suffering lasting burns."

Oh well, if you have moderate powers... go ahead and lock or delete the thread.