Torture at the Push of a Button

By Jonathan Turley

washingtonpost.com

Thursday, August 28, 2003; Page A27

Last week accused sniper John Allen Muhammad raised a
point of legal procedure and received a shocking
response — literally. Muhammad objected to a medical
test that had not been ordered by the court or
discussed with his attorney. In response to his refusal
to cooperate, the guards activated a stun belt that
sent a powerful electrical charge through his body.
While few people in this region have sympathy for
Muhammad, the use of a 50,000-volt shock was a
disturbing introduction to this common device. In fact,
the use of the stun belt in such a circumstance is
unlawful but not unique. Stun belts have been denounced
internationally as a violation of basic human rights.

Local government and Congress should insist on new
guidelines, if not a ban, on the use of these devices.
At $800 each, stun belts are the closest thing to a
fashion craze in the correctional field. For the well-
appointed prosecutor or prison guard, they’re a must.
The devices are battery-operated and fit around the
waist of a prisoner. The guard holds a simple remote
control that sends an eight-second, 50,000- to 70,000-
volt surge through a prisoner, causing immediate loss
of muscular control and incapacitation. When shocked,
many individuals will defecate or urinate on
themselves. Some can experience fatal cardiac
arrhythmia. Muscular weakness and temporary paralysis
or weakness continue for 30 to 45 minutes. Last spring
Wisconsin sheriffs held a public display to show the
media how harmless tasers (stun guns) and stun belts
are by shocking one of their own deputies,
appropriately named Krist Boldt. Boldt was hit with a
five-second jolt and was sent to the hospital with a
head wound after he hit the floor.

The increasing use of stun belts in the United States
has alarmed some of our closest friends
internationally. Stun belts have been defined as a
torture device by Amnesty International, which
describes them as "cruel, inhumane and degrading." The
United Nations Committee Against Torture has objected
that they may violate the Geneva Conventions.
Despite such human rights objections, stun belts are
used in 30 state prisons and all federal trial courts.
For prisoners, they have the same effect as a taser gun
pointed continually an inch from their heads. At any
moment, a guard can flip a switch and turn you into a
quivering, incapacitated freak. Indeed, the stun belt’s
ability "to humiliate the wearer" is cited as a "great
advantage" by one company’s literature — impressing on
a defendant that "the mere push of a button in someone
else’s hand could make you defecate and urinate
yourself."

A court recently found that accidental triggerings
occur regularly. For example, murder defendant Roy
Hollaway of Las Vegas was at a critical stage of his
trial, with a prosecutor pointing to him and asking the
jury "how deep, deep into this man’s being does this
violence run?" As if on cue, Hollaway’s stun belt was
triggered and 50,000 volts coursed through him. As the
jury watched, Hollaway flailed and foamed on the
courtroom floor.

It is because of the constant threat of an intentional
or accidental shock that some courts have banned or
restricted the use of stun belts in court. Last year
the California Supreme Court effectively banned the use
of hidden belts during criminal trials, rejecting
claims that conventional restraints and proper
supervision cannot satisfy security concerns. Other
states, such as Indiana, have also banned them.
The use of a stun belt on Muhammad appears abusive and
should be investigated as a potential case of criminal
assault. In the United States, a prisoner cannot be
physically attacked for a refusal to submit to a
medical test. In this case, Muhammad reportedly refused
to submit to an X-ray without speaking with his
counsel. Muhammad had agreed to a court-ordered MRI,
but objected that the X-ray was never raised. According
to The Post, Muhammad was restrained by the wrists and
ankles and never became violent. The stun belt was
apparently used to punish him and force him to conform
to the wishes of the guards. With stun belt literature
promising guards "total psychological supremacy" over
inmates, an inmate’s failure to yield can enrage a
guard and easily lead to such "corrective action."
There is no difference between this alleged use of a
stun belt and an officer beating Muhammad with a club
or shooting him for failing to yield to commands. Yet
such abuses are rarely treated as criminal matters. In
June 1998, Long Beach Superior Court Judge Joan
Comparet- Cassani ordered a deputy to shock a
defendant, Ronnie Hawkins, after he repeatedly
interrupted her. A judicial review board refused to
impose disciplinary action on the judge, who continues
to try cases in California.

Various ways exist to control or punish an
uncooperative prisoner short of some Pavlovian use of
electric shocks. In Muhammad’s case, he could have been
punished administratively for the failure to obey an
order, assuming that he was wrong.
Stun belts should be prohibited from use in court and
in all but the most extreme correctional circumstances.
At a minimum, this case calls for new restrictions and
training and a commitment to prosecute guards who use
excessive force.

The writer is Shapiro professor of public interest law
and directs a prison project at George Washington Law
School. He will answer questions about this column
during a Live Online discussion at 2 p.m. today at
www.washingtonpost.com.

(c) 2003 The Washington Post Company