
Stun Belts in Court - bryanrasmussen
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/07/29/shock-treatment-in-court
======
patrickyeon
> County officers authorized to use stun cuffs are required to go through
> training and are only allowed to use them “to overcome active resistance” or
> when “active aggression is an immediate or credible threat to the safety of
> the deputy(s), the public” or the defendant, Christian wrote in an email.

...

> “If I’m sitting here, I’m no security threat,” Calvert said, according to
> court records cited in an appeal later filed by Calvert’s lawyer.

> “I’m not talking a security threat,” Skeen replied. “I’m talking about you
> listening to me.”

> Later, Skeen ordered Calvert to sit down and then, a moment later, to answer
> a question. When Calvert again failed to stand up to address the judge, an
> officer activated the device, according to court records.

So. This officer who activated the device. What happened to them? Have they
been reprimanded? Criminally charged? Are they still given the ability to
shock defendents in Smith County courts?

~~~
piptastic
I mean technically it's both threat OR to overcome active resistance.

It could be argued that he was actively resisting by not standing.

~~~
pulisse
> It could be argued that he was actively resisting by not standing.

If that's active resistance, what would an example of passive resistance be?

~~~
Viliam1234
Following the orders... but with insufficient enthusiasm?

------
vivekd
I think the disturbing question that this brings up is: Given that so many
judges are willing to abuse stun belts and turn them into a morbid torture
device, how can we trust these people to adequately decide important criminal
cases. In my opinion, the answer in an alarmingly many number of cases is we
can't.

This could be solved quickly if we require the prosecutor and criminal lawyer
or self represented defendant to agree on a judge before going to trial. If
there are judges out there that very few of one side or the other is willing
to agree to, those judges should be reviewed for making biased decisions and
be at risk of losing their judgeship. Or we could pay judges by the number of
cases they get and hope the ones who don't get many agreements will go away on
their own.

This can be a workable system: Just require that the parties keep going if
their first choice is not available. For example: we could have 6 judges at
random and give each party 3 vetoes to get rid of judges they don't want. We
could even just let the parties choose a judge and only have the court
intervene when they are unable to select a judge who is available in a
reasonable amount of time. I can almost guarantee that the fear of random
choice will make most litigants cooperate to pick a good judge.

In any case, the current system of having old lawyers with almost no
accountability be judges is wanting.

~~~
pasabagi
I think the point is, you don't trust judges. Their decisions are open to
appeal - and if they're found to be contrary to the law, they're regularly
overturned.

The problem is more with non-lethal weapons. If you don't really heavily
regulate them, they're obviously going to be used to torture people into
compliance, because that's what they are for. A taser electrocutes somebody
until they cannot resist. Pepper spray causes so much pain people stop doing
whatever they are doing. There's simply a very subtle distinction between
using a torture device to stop somebody from doing something dangerous to
themselves or others, and using it to stop them from doing something that's
simply problematic or against the law.

Non-lethal weapons ask their users to make these distinctions every day, in
stressful situations. If the job in general blurs the line, then you can
expect their decisions to be equally blurry.

------
xrd
My 6 year old son and I have constant battles when I correct him for poor
choices. He will do the same types of things they described in this article,
interrupting, being rude. It's what people in a place with no other options
do.

My choices are to escalate and spank or hit him. I've never done that.

He always hears what I say. In the moments of greatest conflict when I'm sure
he is ignoring what I'm saying I know he hears it all, because he uses the
same techniques on his sisters weeks later, verbatim.

These judges are in a position of power. What they say will be supported and
enforced by the massive system all around them. These defendants might pretend
to ignore it, but they will hear what is being said.

These judges want to make sure they are being paid respect, and are willing to
do something barbaric to achieve that. But, worse than anything this is really
stupid because they will provide an avenue for someone who might actually have
committed a crime to find a way out. This is pure stupidity and arrogance on
the part of the judges. They are putting their own arrogance over the due
process of law.

~~~
rolph
i have a feeling that the places where this sort of crime occurs, also have
similar attitudes and detours around due process in a J.D. hogg-esque way.

------
oftenwrong
Even if the stun belts were banned, these malicious judges would still have
significant power to harm people via their authority. A judge that would shock
a person to punish them for non-violent disobedience cannot be trusted to
decide matters of law fairly.

------
jdietrich
Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

 _" Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical
or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing
him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any
reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a
public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not
include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions."_

Can anyone, devil's advocate or otherwise, argue that the use of these belts
does not constitute torture under international law?

[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx)

------
josephagoss
I had no idea this was happening in todays world, it is utterly barbaric. To
be electrocuting someone constantly throughout their trial, it is so saddening
to see society get to this point.

~~~
commandlinefan
Just FYI, the word "electrocute" is a portmanteau of "electricity" and
"execute", which ends with the death of the electrocuted.

~~~
ravedave5
But it no longer means that in common use.

~~~
bahmboo
No it still means that.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Many people use "electrocute" to mean "receive an electric shock".

Whether the word still means "to receive a fatal electric shock" in spite of
this common use is a question of semantics - whether you believe the
dictionary ought to be prescriptive or descriptive.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
Merriam Webster says [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/electrocute](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/electrocute) to kill or severely injure

------
abj
> A Maryland judge was ousted from office for shocking a defendant who did not
> stop talking when asked, leaving the man hollering on the ground in pain
> while the court took a recess.

The video of the shock is linked in the article.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYfzrof2g4o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYfzrof2g4o)

It's much more jarring that just reading the description of the event. How can
we organize our society to ensure these events are never incentivized to
happen?

~~~
Chirael
It's absolutely unbelievable that something like this could occur in modern
society. It makes me fearful for the future, not convinced that we are much
more advanced than aggressive apes. The way everyone else in the court just
ignores the man is like something out of my worst nightmare of the Milgram
experiment. Despicable.

~~~
abj
I agree, the way everyone else ignores him is unreal. I didn't believe this
could occur in modern society either.

There doesn't seem to be an easy fix. The judge is at least partly conditioned
by the environment they were raised in. The engineers fed their families with
the income earned from building the pain belt.

It makes me wonder how I might be complicit in harmful consequences I can't
predict. I'm wondering what actions I could take personally to avoid doing
damage like this in the future.

------
thefifthsetpin
THE COURT: YOU ARE WEARING A VERY BAD INSTRUMENT, AND IF YOU WANT TO FEEL IT,
YOU CAN, BUT STOP INTERRUPTING.

MR. HAWKINS: YOU ARE GOING TO ELECTROCUTE ME FOR TALKING?

THE COURT: NO, SIR, BUT THEY WILL ZAP YOU IF YOU KEEP DOING IT. THE DEFENDANT
ALSO ALLEGES THAT THE COURT HAS AN EX PARTE CONTACT WITH THE D.A. THAT IS NOT
TRUE, AND I AM NOT AWARE THAT THIS DEPUTY D.A. —

MR. HAWKINS: THE TRANSCRIPT WILL REFLECT THAT.

THE COURT: ONE MORE TIME. ONE MORE TIME. GO AHEAD.

MR. HAWKINS: THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (AT THIS TIME THE BELT WAS ACTIVATED.) *
* *

...

MR. HAWKINS: I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN VERY UNFAIR. I THINK THESE ELECTRONIC
SHOCKS TO ME WITHOUT DISPLAYING ANY VIOLENT BEHAVIOR — I THINK IT IS VERY IN-
HUMANE ON YOUR PART.

THE COURT: SIR, THERE WAS ONLY ONE BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO OBEY MY ORDER TO
STOP INTERRUPTING ME. SO DON'T MISSTATE THE RECORD. THERE WAS ONLY ONE, NOT
PLURAL.

MR. HAWKINS: BUT FOR A VERBAL INTERRUPTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES, SIR, THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

MR. HAWKINS: THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THING IS DESIGNED FOR. YOU ARE OVERSTEPPING
YOUR AUTHORITY.

THE COURT: NO. SIR, ANYTHING ELSE?

Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1232 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001)

~~~
cwkoss
That judge should be convicted of assault, if not something more.

~~~
z2
Simply privately admonished, it seems, while the county picked up the bill for
a $275,000 settlement.

[http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/cjpx081711.htm](http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/cjpx081711.htm)

------
aphextim
Why make these devices be manually triggered by someone? The first thing I
thought of is if you "had" to have a shock system in place, why not make it
like an "invisible fence" for a dog. I get wanting to protect everyone in the
court but having this be manually triggered will always lead to abuse.

It would only trigger if the person in question were to actually attempt to
harm another and leave their designated area or if they somehow raised their
voice higher than a set dB level (Dog barking shock collar type).

Obviously have manual override to turn it OFF when it malfunctions but do not
let someone manually be able to turn it ON.

Not advocating for treating people like dogs, however this would be more
reactionary to a situation rather than leaving the control be in the hands of
a person who may make decisions based on personal preference or emotion.

~~~
arcticbull
> Not advocating for treating people like dogs, however...

It's like saying "I'm not racist but..." \-- you are in fact advocating
treating people like dogs.

There are other solutions to this, as evidenced by it being illegal in all of
Europe and Europe and the United Nations pushing to make it illegal in the
rest of the world.

~~~
pcstl
Europe's solution to this is glass cages. I'm not sure that's much better on
the "not treating people like dogs" scale.

~~~
arcticbull
People are confined in many different settings, home, office, prison, etc.
This is not dramatically out of line. People are not usually electrocuted for
speaking.

------
mnm1
How can you possibly have a fair trial this way? It's impossible. I hope this
guy wins his appeal. It's incredible that the courts are now more despicable
than a murderer and kidnapper in their practices. Let's skip the jury and have
the judge administer punishment, even death. Right there in front of everyone.
And why? Because the court officers can't restrain one person? What kind of
officers are these? They can't keep one person in line? Then fire them. Get
someone who can. That's their whole fucking job. What a bunch of weak, useless
cowards who would rather torture a man than do their fucking job. Of course
the job is dangerous. That's what these cowards signed up for.

------
rolph
Taken to its full extension, when could we see an attempt to include
electrocution with ankle monitor systems for bailees, or parolees.

~~~
jostmey
Leave the county, and then Zap! It continues every 60 seconds until you return
or the battery dies. It saves the court money by not needing to send a police
officer after someone

~~~
knd775
Oops, they actually just went into a tunnel and it couldn't get a GPS lock.

~~~
yellowapple
The "effective" option would be to make it start zapping if it loses a GPS
lock.

Good luck if you ever need to go through a tunnel.

------
08-15
Why do they keep calling the pain belt a stun belt?

~~~
Nasrudith
Because euphemisms are a weapon of evil - if we called them pain belts people
would immediately realize they are the baddies.

------
devoply
Judge should be fired. The fact that he is still practising shows the
crookedness of the American legal system. It's fine for a judge to have such a
tool, but to use it in this way is unacceptable.

~~~
08-15
No. Judge should be jailed. It's assault, plain and simple.

~~~
yellowapple
¿Por qué no los dos?

------
opwieurposiu
The root of these and similar problems is that agents of the state are not
held accountable to the people.

Ideally the judge, DA, etc would be also be equipped with stun cuffs and then
members of the jury may activate them whenever unconstitutional behavior
occurs.

------
rolltiide
I’m motivated by always have enough money for representation and
representation through appeals court

A general, perpetual socioeconomic exemption

------
romaaeterna
I wish journalists would learn how much more persuasive they can be if they
are matter-of-fact. The particulars of this triggered my skepticism in the 4
paragraphs following "Heightening the tension...", and I assumed that
important details were being left out, and that there was some sort of
scuffle, etc., going on, leading to the shock.

In fact, reading the appeal, the fact pattern looks very bad for the court.
The man was shocked mid-sentence as he spoke while sitting down. There appears
to have been no scuffle.

So I'm fairly convinced now, but no thanks to this article trying to be
"persuasive."

------
cloakandswagger
I'm fine with this. If you can't behave yourself in court, you get a zap.
Either that or a bailiff cracks you over the head with a club.

It's amazing how effective corporal punishment is even past childhood years.
Singapore has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, but act out there
and you'll get a caning.

