Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Staff Use of Force in U.S. Confinement Settings: Lawful Control Tactics Versus Corporal Punishment
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Staff Use of Force in U.S. Confinement Settings: Lawful Control Tactics Versus Corporal Punishment
Do you wish to request the book?
Staff Use of Force in U.S. Confinement Settings: Lawful Control Tactics Versus Corporal Punishment
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Staff Use of Force in U.S. Confinement Settings: Lawful Control Tactics Versus Corporal Punishment
2006
Overview
The temptation to engage in de facto corporal punishment is reinforced by the wide range of high-tech, non-lethal weaponry available to correctional personnel: electronic stunning devices (some of which are capable of delivering 50,000 volts and can be used with shields, darts, and probes),4 sting shot rubber bullets, stun guns (canvas bags filled with lead shot, canisters filled with wood blocks, or rubber pellets fired from a 37 millimeter gas gun), pepper spray (a type of teargas made from cayenne peppers developed in Canada to control bears), and a variety of restraint devices such as the restraint chair and the Body Guard (advertised as a revolutionary new design that allows officers to safely restrain and immobilize combative subjects without facing the complications and dangers associated with the traditional restraint methods such as hogtying). The contribution of high-tech (and some low-tech) weaponry to patterns of de facto corporal punishment is illustrated by a federal district court decision rendered in 1995 involving one of the nation's most modern supermax facilities.
