Is Using Pain Rays in Prisons a Humane Alternative for Riot Control?

[mugaliens]

H. G. Wells had his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-Ray" .

Debuting in an L. A. County, this device was originally developed by Raytheon for the military as a crowd control weapon, but was rejected by the military for unknown reasons.

It's now being evaluated by the National Institute of Justice for use in jails.

Some folks consider this a "controversial weapon," http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/aclu-calls-los-angeles-county-sheriff-s-officials-abandon-plans-use-military-heat-r" , but other organizations are praising it as a less damaging and more humane way of dispersing conflicts than bean bags (which can break bones) and rubber bullets (which can blind).

While in the military I experienced tear gas, and I was maced by some psycho back in 1989, so I know they're somewhat effective, but I also know a healthy shot of adrenaline and some dogged determination can overcome both to a large extent.

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2010/09/01/california-detention-center-employs-pain-ray-to-keep-inmates-in-line/", for example, hails it as a means of dispersing unruly fights without causing any physical damage.

What's better? Mayhem resulting from inmate fighting? Broken bones or blindness from bean bags and rubber bullets? Or intense but fleeting pain which disappears the moment one exits the path of the beam and leaves no lasting damage?

http://www.kcra.com/r/24792225/detail.html" during the August 27 Folsom Prison riot because normal efforts to break up the riot failed, and the guards had little choice but to fire five live rounds into the crowd in order to break it up before someone was killed.

In my mind, Raytheon's invention is a http://www.kcra.com/r/24792225/detail.html" .

I'd like to open this up to discussion as to how this technology works, the physics of it, as well as the moral and legal implications, hopefully preferable, of using this sort of non-damaging technology as opposed to technologies currently in use which can, and do send inmates to hospitals when they're used. I'd also like to discuss this device's use as a crowd dispersal instrument during civilian riots, for the same reasons.

 

[Proton Soup]

seems they prefer to call it a "laser", since no one wants to be cooked with a microwave.

 

[Hurkyl]

seems they prefer to call it a "laser", since no one wants to be cooked with a microwave.

And they want to be cooked with lasers?

My apologies if I'm in error, but your post reads as an attempt at cheap fear-mongering, which isn't acceptable here.

 

[mugaliens]

If I'm not mistaken, it's millimeter wave, not microwave. It'll penetrate clothing, but not the skin.

 

[DanP]

What's better? Mayhem resulting from inmate fighting? Broken bones or blindness from bean bags and rubber bullets? Or intense but fleeting pain which disappears the moment one exits the path of the beam and leaves no lasting damage?

http://www.kcra.com/r/24792225/detail.html" during the August 27 Folsom Prison riot because normal efforts to break up the riot failed, and the guards had little choice but to fire five live rounds into the crowd in order to break it up before someone was killed.

I don't see it as a problem to use live rounds to break a prison riot.

 

[NeoDevin]

I don't see it as a problem to use live rounds to break a prison riot.

If the new technology is both more effective, and non-lethal (or even less-lethal), there would seem to be no down side.

I would also assume (and this is an assumption, I don't have any numbers to back it up, if anyone has any numbers, feel free to contribute) that there is far less paperwork (investigations and/or lawsuits) involved when using non-lethal methods of crowd control than potentially lethal ones, even in a prison environment. This could potentially lead to the new technology being cheaper, despite the higher initial cost to purchase it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The real drawback with technology like this is not that it will be used as an alternative to firearms or other forms of deadly force. The threat is that it will be used when not needed. It could easily be used as a form of torture that leaves no evidence. So to me that problem is not the technology itself, but how it is regulated and applied.

Power corrupts. As with tasers, it will be abused - of that you can be sure. First it will be used as an alternative to deadly force, but eventually it will be used as a basic tool for compliance, as is already true with tasers. No doubt it will eventually be applied by guards that just have a bad attitude; or a sick need to inflict pain on others.

 

[Hurkyl]

The real drawback with technology like this is not that it will be used as an alternative to firearms or other forms of deadly force. The threat is that it will be used when not needed. It could easily be used as a form of torture that leaves no evidence. So to me that problem is not the technology itself, but how it is regulated and applied.

An issue to consider to be sure.

What is your opinion on its use as an alternative to firearms or other forms of deadly force, though?

 

[nismaratwork]

An issue to consider to be sure.

What is your opinion on its use as an alternative to firearms or other forms of deadly force, though?

Used responsibly it seems as though this could save lives (those 5 in prison for instance). As for irresponsible use, as is sometimes the case with Tasers, we all know that once the genie is out, that's going to happen. Only time and awareness can curtail that. Frankly, I'd rather be "heat-rayed" than tased on someone's whim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An issue to consider to be sure.

What is your opinion on its use as an alternative to firearms or other forms of deadly force, though?

It beats brass knuckles and stomach punches. Ideally, non-lethal weapons can eventually replace all lethal weapons, in law enforcement. But the unavoidable abuse of these technologies does worry me. The biggest danger that I see here, is a public that grows complacent to abuse BECAUSE it is non-lethal. I see great implicit pressure [momentum might be a better word] for torture to become acceptable.

 

[DanP]

The real drawback with technology like this is not that it will be used as an alternative to firearms or other forms of deadly force. The threat is that it will be used when not needed. It could easily be used as a form of torture that leaves no evidence. So to me that problem is not the technology itself, but how it is regulated and applied.

Power corrupts. As with tasers, it will be abused - of that you can be sure. First it will be used as an alternative to deadly force, but eventually it will be used as a basic tool for compliance, as is already true with tasers. No doubt it will eventually be applied by guards that just have a bad attitude; or a sick need to inflict pain on others.

Oh, yeah, I agree, law enforcement is a trigger happy species. Take them as individuals, they are law obeying citizens, no different from me and you. Take them as a group, in their uniforms, with their gun and badges, they become rabid dogs. As you and me would probably become with a gun and a badge :P But who indeed try to protect the sheep from the wolf . (As a mission. Some rabid dogs do become wolfs in practice)

 

[DanP]

It beats brass knuckles and stomach punches.

Why ? Does it matter how you inflict pain as long as you don't do permanent damage ? Or you mean it's easier for the law enforcement officer to inflict pain from distance, because he doesn't have to deal with the psychological fact that "he has blood on his hands" ?

An interesting question, when you trigger pain remotely, will you stop faster than when you psychically pummel another human being with your hands or the grip of a firearm? I am really interested if someone specializing in social psychology can answer this question. When are ypu less likely to inflict superfluous pain: when you act remotely, separated of the victim, or when you maim someone with a gun and your bare hands, up close and personal ?

 

[jreelawg]

At first I thought you were talking about M.E.D.U.S.A., the non lethal weapon which can beam sounds into your head via microwave.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14250

These kinds of things are better kept secret and not used. Once they start getting mass produced and distributed all over, they will inevitably end up in the hands of the wrong people.

Just imagine all the dictators, cult leaders, psychopaths, and terrorists in the world. Ends up just being another proliferation nightmare.

 

[Hurkyl]

Take them as a group, in their uniforms, with their gun and badges, they become rabid dogs.

Why ? Does it matter how you inflict pain as long as you don't do permanent damage ?

A point of weapons like the heat ray is that they are less likely to do permanent (or even short-term) damage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why ? Does it matter how you inflict pain as long as you don't do permanent damage ? Or you mean it's easier for the law enforcement officer to inflict pain from distance, because he doesn't have to deal with the psychological fact that "he has blood on his hands" ?

Based on what I've heard and seen, I would rather be hit with a heat ray than punched in the gut, or kicked between the legs.

An interesting question, when you trigger pain remotely, will you stop faster than when you psychically pummel another human being with your hands or the grip of a firearm? I am really interested if someone specializing in social psychology can answer this question. When are ypu less likely to inflict superfluous pain: when you act remotely, separated of the victim, or when you maim someone with a gun and your bare hands, up close and personal ?

I see two possible factors in play here: First, by acting at a distance, one is less likely to become emotionally involved. This may help to prevent abuses. One of the hardest things about being a good cop [or related] is the need to suppress one's natural [human] tendencies, and remain professional. e.g. If someone hits me, I want to hit them back!

But I also agree that a person is more likely to inflict pain when the method of delivery is non-violent and indirect. I forget the name of the experiment, but a famous experiment in psychology showed that the average person could be bullied into inflicting terrible pain, or even death, on someone they had never met, if it only required that they turn a knob. So yes, I think that is a great concern.

Interestingly, people were more resistant to giving sexual pleasure to others, by turning a knob, than they were to inflicting pain.

 

[DanP]

A point of weapons like the heat ray is that they are less likely to do permanent (or even short-term) damage.

Agreed. however, I wonder how much pain can a man stand before going into shock then die. In the case someone feels playful and decides to focus a pain causing device on a single creature for a long time.

 

[DanP]

But I also agree that a person is more likely to inflict pain when the method of delivery is non-violent. I forget the name of the experiment, but a famous experiment in psychology showed that the average person could be bullied into inflicting terrible pain, or even death, on someone they had never met, if it only required that they turn a knob. So yes, I think that is a great concern.

Milgram, obedience experiments.
Asch, conformity
Zimbardo, a lesser devil himself, IMO, Stanford prison experiments

Im willing to bet, they'll (prison guards) abuse the **** out of any device. And IMO it will be much easier for them to doit impersonally.

 

[Hurkyl]

I forget the name of the experiment, but a famous experiment in psychology showed that the average person could be bullied into inflicting terrible pain, or even death, on someone they had never met, if it only required that they turn a knob. So yes, I think that is a great concern.

The experiment was about compliance with authority, not about the willingness of a person to inflict pain. IIRC, the subject was led to believe he was assisting a medical procedure or something (being done with consent of the "victim"), and was acting under the direction and constant supervision of someone he was led to believe was a doctor.

 

[Hurkyl]

Agreed. however, I wonder how much pain can a man stand before going into shock then die. In the case someone feels playful and decides to focus a pain causing device on a single creature for a long time.

I wonder if you have anything to contribute other than vague implication and specious fear-mongering.

 

[DanP]

I wonder if you have anything to contribute other than vague implication and specious fear-mongering.

Wonder on, Hurkyl . Fear has its uses. Not that I would know anything about it. I am here on phsyiscs forums to learn.

 

[DanP]

The experiment was about compliance with authority, not about the willingness of a person to inflict pain. IIRC, the subject was led to believe he was assisting a medical procedure or something (being done with consent of the "victim"), and was acting under the direction and constant supervision of someone he was led to believe was a doctor.

False premises. It wasnt done with "consent" of the victim. But you are right, experiment was about obedience.

And in a prison, guardians answer to the warden. He is the authority.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The experiment was about compliance with authority, not about the willingness of a person to inflict pain.

But that was still apparent. It would be much harder to motivate this behavior if it required direct contact with the victim.

Likewise, it is much easier to bomb a village, than it is to kill a man [or woman, or child] with your bare hands.

 

[Proton Soup]

And they want to be cooked with lasers?

My apologies if I'm in error, but your post reads as an attempt at cheap fear-mongering, which isn't acceptable here.

yes, you are in error. i genuinely believe that the re-branding of the device as a laser is a cheap attempt to gain public acceptance for it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The experiment was about compliance with authority, not about the willingness of a person to inflict pain. IIRC, the subject was led to believe he was assisting a medical procedure or something (being done with consent of the "victim"), and was acting under the direction and constant supervision of someone he was led to believe was a doctor.

It in fact had nothing to do with a medical procedure. Instead they were shocking a "student" for getting the wrong answers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

[mugaliens]

The real drawback with technology like this is not that it will be used as an alternative to firearms or other forms of deadly force. The threat is that it will be used when not needed. It could easily be used as a form of torture that leaves no evidence. So to me that problem is not the technology itself, but how it is regulated and applied.

Power corrupts. As with tasers, it will be abused - of that you can be sure. First it will be used as an alternative to deadly force, but eventually it will be used as a basic tool for compliance, as is already true with tasers. No doubt it will eventually be applied by guards that just have a bad attitude; or a sick need to inflict pain on others.

Electronic logs for use and kept off-site, perhaps at the governor's office, two-person control requirements and perhaps consent/authorization from the warden before it's used...

Your objections are certainly valid, Ivan, though all can easily be addressed through modern technology to prevent it's abuse in any fashion. If nothing else, then a locked and sealed hard drive recording the boresighted HD camera pic as it's being used, much like the linked demonstration, along with two keys to enable operation for two-person control policy.

If the camera and hard drive aren't working, an interlock would disable the device. At that point it's back to bean bags and bullets.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/12/72236" on the testing that's been done to date.

 

[Hurkyl]

yes, you are in error. i genuinely believe that the re-branding of the device as a laser is a cheap attempt to gain public acceptance for it.

I confess I'm having a hard time seeing "laser" as misleadingly warm and fuzzy nomenclature.

 

[mugaliens]

I don't see it as a problem to use live rounds to break a prison riot.

If that's all one has, then to prevent greater mayhem, or death, among the prisoners, it might be the only way to go. In the Folsom riot they did fire five live rounds. Some of the prisoners were indeed hospitalized, though it doesn't mention whether from injuries sustained from the riot or from the live rounds.

The biggest danger that I see here, is a public that grows complacent to abuse BECAUSE it is non-lethal.

Non-lethality does not equate to non-painful.

An interesting question, when you trigger pain remotely, will you stop faster than when you psychically pummel another human being with your hands or the grip of a firearm? I am really interested if someone specializing in social psychology can answer this question. When are ypu less likely to inflict superfluous pain: when you act remotely, separated of the victim, or when you maim someone with a gun and your bare hands, up close and personal ?

In my psychology of abberent behavior class, one study purportedly was testing the "punisher's" ability to determine whether or not a person connected to a jolt machine was lying or not. The punisher was told some of the people would be lying, while others would tell the truth. A variety of canned questions were asked, questions with pre-verified answers from the test subjects beforehand.

You see, none of them were lying. What was actually being tested, also unknown to the grad students administering the test, is what factors contributed to whether or not someone believed someone else was lying, the principle two factors of which involved the sex of the punisher and the test subject, as well as the apparent "beauty/handsome" score of the test subject.

The other thing that was measured (and this part is in response to your point), is whether or not the punisher thought the test subject could see them or not. If the punisher thought he could be seen, he pushed the button less often. If he thought he was not visible, he pushed it more often.

So, at least for the first part of your question, one does tend to hit that button if the subject is more remote than if they're up close and personal.

yes, you are in error. i genuinely believe that the re-branding of the device as a laser is a cheap attempt to gain public acceptance for it.

I took that as a simple misnomer on the part of the reporter. Lasers can be much more blinding, permanently damaging, and lethal than 3 mm wave radio waves.

 

[Proton Soup]

I took that as a simple misnomer on the part of the reporter. Lasers can be much more blinding, permanently damaging, and lethal than 3 mm wave radio waves.

maybe it was a misnomer. would have to see if it pops up in other places.

but as for injury potential, I'm not looking at from the perspective of a scientist or engineer, but how a layperson might feel about that choice of word. and a decade or two ago, maybe it would seem dangerous. but we're surrounded by benign uses now, from laser pointers, to computer mice.

with regard to the sociological discussion, i do wonder also how reactive prisoners would be if something this impersonal were used on them. would the pain be intense enough to foster more violence? if they didn't know who was doing it to them, would they be less likely to seek revenge? or would it make them even more violent, or less specific about who their violence was directed at?

 

[mugaliens]

with regard to the sociological discussion, i do wonder also how reactive prisoners would be if something this impersonal were used on them. would the pain be intense enough to foster more violence? if they didn't know who was doing it to them, would they be less likely to seek revenge? or would it make them even more violent, or less specific about who their violence was directed at?

These are very good points, Proton Soup. If it simply pushes their adrenaline through the roof to the point where they scatter beyond the limits of the ray and the mayhem increases, that would not be a good thing.

If I'm not mistaken, however, that might be why it's being field-tested at a prison!

As I mentioned, "http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/12/72236" on the testing that's been done to date."

I'll peruse them and return in a few minutes...

Well, so much for that. Apparently Wired doesn't make good on its link! All I get is the Wired home page. Fooey!

 

[cronxeh]

Am I the only one who thinks this technology is laughable? It is easily beaten with protective shielding, and I can't see how you could use this to replace an armed guard, for example for perimeter defense. I also don't envision this being a portable device, as energy requirements are high and portability seems unlikely and expensive.

There is a reason why bean bags, tasers, and good old knuckle sandwhiches are used. They are effective and get to the point. Using an electromagnetic wave at a distance seems unreliable

Come to think of it, is there anything more hilarious than a group of aluminum-foil covered Mexicans crossing the desert under the Active Denial System? "La carne de burro no es transparente"