Some of you may remember a little while ago, I had a status that asked questions of stories I’d seen in the news.
I’m going to respond in notes as it seems more appropriate.
1.) Is it ever right to TASER a child?
As I understand it, the 10 year old kid in Arkansas has emotional problems and was throwing a tantrum when her mum tried to get her to have a bath. So her mum called the cops. Now maybe I don't realise the full extent of the kid's tantrum, but firstly, it seems the mum should not have called the police. The police are there to enforce the law - not to deal with children throwing strops at bath time. This seems to me to be an abuse of police time. Parenting is the duty of the parent, not the state. Especially if this kid has emotional problems, after 10 years of raising this child, the mother should be better equipped than the uninitiated police to raise, discipline, and control this child.
Secondly, she is a child - emotionally and physically immature. Emotionally, yes she may understand the difference between right and wrong but may not be developed enough to understand full consequences. Depending on what her "emotional problems" are, she may well be even less equipped to realise consequences of her actions or even the difference between right and wrong. I feel she is too young to be subdued by means of an electric shock. It is said she kicked the police officer in the groin. Children kick when they're frustrated. I've seen toddlers kick their parents. It is part of parenting to teach children that this is wrong and an unacceptable way to behave. I believe this should be achieved as non-forcefully as possible. Not being a parent myself, I’m sure this is easier to say than to achieve. I'm not denying a 10 year old has the capacity to do some damage, but as a child I'm sure a fully grown man and woman could suppress this child without electrocuting her. To me, that level of force with a physically and emotionally immature individual who is not fully in possession of a moral code and an understanding of the harm they can do in these circumstances is wrong. From the articles I've read, noone was in serious physical jeopardy.
It seems to me that meeting an emotionally disturbed child’s anger with violence is going to instill the wrong messages and cause further problems down the line.
Tim - You said: "Yes ethical questions reduce to questions of suffering, and if tasering a child has the net result of reducing suffering then it is ok."
And similarly Ike - You said: "kids and tasers. kids are getting stupider and more stupid these days, their parents dont give a fuck, they smoke at the age of 6, rape at the age of 11, if you saw your sister getting raped by a small boy and you had a taser and a video camera, which would you use first? gut instinct, your sister..."
Yes - I see that. I may not have the same reservations about a cop tasering the Jamie Bulger murderers had he happened on them laying the boy on train tracks and it was a snap decision to save Bulger's life. Or a 10 year old committing an act of rape (though even then, if close enough to use the hand-held TASER, a police officer is surely close enough to pull the child away?) But in the instance I refer to, the episode did not seem to warrant it.
These are my thoughts to date based on what I know. I am willing to reconsider in the face of persuasive arguments.
Joe, you said "id say its never right to but at the same time iv seen some kids that its the only way to get through to them, so some times i see it as a valid way of gettin the point accross."
What kids would you say it is the only way to get through to them?
Interestingly, the cop in Arkansas was discharged, not for using his TASER on a child, but for not operating the attached camera as he did so, as per standard procedure. If this reason is just a technicality to sack the guy for TASERing a child, then I think TASERing a child should be the reason he was fired. This issue needs to be examined and a precedent set.
The suffering question is an interesting one though. I had a discussion with Izzy not so long ago along the lines of; if there was an imminent global epidemic that would kill half the world's population in a slow and painful way, would it be right to torture the cure out of the one person who had it but was withholding it during all other means of interrogation? And if it came to it, could you do it personally?
