Day 18
Today's topic at the debate club (where I volunteer) was about tasers. The resolution, specifically, is: "Be it resolved that taser use be banned in Canada."
The debaters all initially agreed that it was too simple a resolution; that is, they believed that there are only really one or two good points for each side of the debate, wheras with a 'good' topic there'd be at least 4 or 5 fairly obvious points for each side.
After some discussion, however, we came to the conclusion that it was in fact a very good topic to be debating. I feel inspired to give a thought or two of my own on the topic here:
As always, we begin with form. Arguments made without a tangible idea of formality (by form I intend to mean the structure, or systematicity of arguments) typically are more vulnerable to problems on a more basic level. So, when we examine tasers and their usage I like to think of how they 'fit' into current issues regarding crime to begin with. I suppose the main line in favour of arming cops with them is that they (tasers) fill an existing gap when it comes to law enforcement: Cops simply do not have a means to incapacitate people who resist arrest in a non-lethal way, that does not also pose great risk to the cops themselves. Guns are potentially (and very often) lethal, while simple strong-arming or use of the club forces close contact, and thus necessitates a higher level of risk. This risk, when we consider the sorts of people cops have to arrest on a daily basis, is too high, and thus tasers are a meaningfully good contribution to their tool set.
The argument has thus been built. Its form is that of identifying a structure and a relevant existing "gap" within its framework, and offering a new object to fill it. The use of "gap filling" as a means to convery the importance of a theory in philosophy (as well as science and other disciplines) is common. The gap here is this supposed lack of same means to deal with dangerous situations in a non-lethal mannar. The gap is filled with the taser.
So, keeping ourselves mindful of the structural nature of the argument, how might we attempt to undermine it? There are, in my opinion, two basic ways:
1. Argue that the proposed solution doesn't in fact fill the gap.
2. Argue that no gap exists, and thus no "gap filling" is required either.
Or are there? Perhaps there is a third way: Let us grant the argument on both levels, agreeing that there exists this gap in law enforcement capability, and that tasers do meaningfully fill it. How then can we proceed?
The procedure then isn't to attack the argument on a structural 'bottom up' basis, but from a 'top down' basis; accept the conclusion, and argue that it leads to further conclusions that when considered and deemed bad, outweigh the original benefit.
And applied:
Tasers are simply too good to be true. Prior to their usage, cops were faced with the issue of choosing between trying to resolve issues in a non-violent way (ie. avoiding confrontation), or using potentially lethal force (guns). The decision criteria were more clear, and cops were made out of necessity to try quite hard to defuse situations without things getting violent. Such tact is no longer necessary, and thus cops are prone to using clearly excessive violence (tasering) in leiu of dealing with things peacefully. Hell, imagine yourself a cop on your 12 hour of a shift, dealing with a domestic dispute. One person begins to yell at you and make threatening gestures, but the person isn't armed. You can either make a concerted effort to calm the person down, or you can provoke the person just a little bit, and end the issue instantly with one shot of your taser.
The ease is precisely the problem. Overuse of tasers is already extremely well documented (have a look on youtube), as well as disproportionate use of tasers on racial minorities.
As for safety: while these instruments may be safer, this does not go far enough to justify their use. And after all, let's be honest and note that it's part of being a cop to take risk and put oneself in harm's way. Perhaps what cops need more of, instead of weaponry, is training in negotiation tactics, training about how to calm doen tough situations, how to keep their cool when tensions run high!
I may add more to this on another occasion.
The debaters all initially agreed that it was too simple a resolution; that is, they believed that there are only really one or two good points for each side of the debate, wheras with a 'good' topic there'd be at least 4 or 5 fairly obvious points for each side.
After some discussion, however, we came to the conclusion that it was in fact a very good topic to be debating. I feel inspired to give a thought or two of my own on the topic here:
As always, we begin with form. Arguments made without a tangible idea of formality (by form I intend to mean the structure, or systematicity of arguments) typically are more vulnerable to problems on a more basic level. So, when we examine tasers and their usage I like to think of how they 'fit' into current issues regarding crime to begin with. I suppose the main line in favour of arming cops with them is that they (tasers) fill an existing gap when it comes to law enforcement: Cops simply do not have a means to incapacitate people who resist arrest in a non-lethal way, that does not also pose great risk to the cops themselves. Guns are potentially (and very often) lethal, while simple strong-arming or use of the club forces close contact, and thus necessitates a higher level of risk. This risk, when we consider the sorts of people cops have to arrest on a daily basis, is too high, and thus tasers are a meaningfully good contribution to their tool set.
The argument has thus been built. Its form is that of identifying a structure and a relevant existing "gap" within its framework, and offering a new object to fill it. The use of "gap filling" as a means to convery the importance of a theory in philosophy (as well as science and other disciplines) is common. The gap here is this supposed lack of same means to deal with dangerous situations in a non-lethal mannar. The gap is filled with the taser.
So, keeping ourselves mindful of the structural nature of the argument, how might we attempt to undermine it? There are, in my opinion, two basic ways:
1. Argue that the proposed solution doesn't in fact fill the gap.
2. Argue that no gap exists, and thus no "gap filling" is required either.
Or are there? Perhaps there is a third way: Let us grant the argument on both levels, agreeing that there exists this gap in law enforcement capability, and that tasers do meaningfully fill it. How then can we proceed?
The procedure then isn't to attack the argument on a structural 'bottom up' basis, but from a 'top down' basis; accept the conclusion, and argue that it leads to further conclusions that when considered and deemed bad, outweigh the original benefit.
And applied:
Tasers are simply too good to be true. Prior to their usage, cops were faced with the issue of choosing between trying to resolve issues in a non-violent way (ie. avoiding confrontation), or using potentially lethal force (guns). The decision criteria were more clear, and cops were made out of necessity to try quite hard to defuse situations without things getting violent. Such tact is no longer necessary, and thus cops are prone to using clearly excessive violence (tasering) in leiu of dealing with things peacefully. Hell, imagine yourself a cop on your 12 hour of a shift, dealing with a domestic dispute. One person begins to yell at you and make threatening gestures, but the person isn't armed. You can either make a concerted effort to calm the person down, or you can provoke the person just a little bit, and end the issue instantly with one shot of your taser.
The ease is precisely the problem. Overuse of tasers is already extremely well documented (have a look on youtube), as well as disproportionate use of tasers on racial minorities.
As for safety: while these instruments may be safer, this does not go far enough to justify their use. And after all, let's be honest and note that it's part of being a cop to take risk and put oneself in harm's way. Perhaps what cops need more of, instead of weaponry, is training in negotiation tactics, training about how to calm doen tough situations, how to keep their cool when tensions run high!
I may add more to this on another occasion.
Comments