![]() ![]() There is some evidence, from New York City, that enforcement of bans may be limited, thus curbing their effectiveness. Such cross-sectional analyses do not attribute causation, nor do they account for other relevant factors, such as differences among agencies in culture, policies, and practices. The available empirical evidence on the effects of neck-restraint prohibitions is limited to comparisons of agencies that have bans to those that do not, with the former reporting a lower number of all types of police killings of members of the public per capita. Banning neck restraint holds does not preclude officers from employing any means necessary to protect themselves or others in the case of deadly threat, including applying pressure on a person’s neck.It is unclear whether statutory or departmental bans on these techniques actually reduce their use, as the bans may not be effectively enforced and officers may resort to the holds in situations where they perceive significant threats.Therefore, eliminating them alone will have little impact on the total number of deaths involving police use of force. Deaths resulting from neck restraints are rare, accounting for less than 1% of estimated police killings.Bans should be accompanied by revised academy instruction and new mandatory in-service training on safe alternative restraint mechanisms and other less lethal methods of control, along with duty to intervene policies. Prohibitions should be codified in a written policy describing the nature of the ban, the reasons for it, how the ban will be enforced, and the consequences for violating it. ![]() Both also may involve application over a sustained period of time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |