×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
BOP Set to Stun Prisoners
A Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reader sent us a photocopied BOP Policy Statement (P.S. 5558.10) dated September 30, 1994. The policy statement authorizes the BOP to force "maximum custody inmates" to wear what it describes as a "Remote Electronically ACtivated Technology (REACT) Stun Belt" as a custody control tool to be used within the BOP. Prisoners will be "asked" to sign the "Inmate Notification Of Custody Control Belt Use" form which is quoted in full below:
"You are hereby advised that you are being required to wear an electronic restraint belt. This belt discharges 50,000 volts of electricity. By means of a remote transmitter, an attending officer has the ability to activate the stun package attached to the belt, thereby causing the following results to take place:
1. Immobilization causing you to fall to the ground.
2. Possibility of self-defecation.
3. Possibility of self-urination.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OFFICER DIRECTIONS COULD LEAD TO ANY OF THE ABOVE.
The belt could be activated under the following actions on your behalf and notification is hereby made:
A. Any tampering with the belt.
B. Failure to comply with staffs verbal order to halt movement of your person.
C. Any attempt to escape custody.
D. Any attempt to inflict serious bodily harm on another person.
E. Any loss of visual contact by the officer in charge.
I UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE INFORMATION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BEING ADVISED OF SAME.
There is a place on the form for "inmates" to sign. It is notable that this document fails to mention any other possible side effects from being shot with a jolt of 50,000 volts of electricity such as heart attacks, permanent twitching, memory loss, vomiting, etc.
Readers should note the June 1994 article, "Stun Gun Use Violates Constitution" which cites a case wherein use of a stun gun to force a reluctant prisoner to comply with an order to clean his cell was ruled to be a violation of the eighth amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment. See: Hickey v. Reeder, F.3d 754 (8th Cir.1993).
We at PLN could eloquently editorialize this piece of information, perhaps mention how gleefully Hitler would have approved of such a device, etc. etc. But, frankly, the above "Inmate Notification" form pretty much says it all. We cant think of anything to say that would be more preposterous or have greater impact than the BOP statement itself. So there you go. Whats next?
"You are hereby advised that you are being required to wear an electronic restraint belt. This belt discharges 50,000 volts of electricity. By means of a remote transmitter, an attending officer has the ability to activate the stun package attached to the belt, thereby causing the following results to take place:
1. Immobilization causing you to fall to the ground.
2. Possibility of self-defecation.
3. Possibility of self-urination.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OFFICER DIRECTIONS COULD LEAD TO ANY OF THE ABOVE.
The belt could be activated under the following actions on your behalf and notification is hereby made:
A. Any tampering with the belt.
B. Failure to comply with staffs verbal order to halt movement of your person.
C. Any attempt to escape custody.
D. Any attempt to inflict serious bodily harm on another person.
E. Any loss of visual contact by the officer in charge.
I UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE INFORMATION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BEING ADVISED OF SAME.
There is a place on the form for "inmates" to sign. It is notable that this document fails to mention any other possible side effects from being shot with a jolt of 50,000 volts of electricity such as heart attacks, permanent twitching, memory loss, vomiting, etc.
Readers should note the June 1994 article, "Stun Gun Use Violates Constitution" which cites a case wherein use of a stun gun to force a reluctant prisoner to comply with an order to clean his cell was ruled to be a violation of the eighth amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment. See: Hickey v. Reeder, F.3d 754 (8th Cir.1993).
We at PLN could eloquently editorialize this piece of information, perhaps mention how gleefully Hitler would have approved of such a device, etc. etc. But, frankly, the above "Inmate Notification" form pretty much says it all. We cant think of anything to say that would be more preposterous or have greater impact than the BOP statement itself. So there you go. Whats next?
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login