挑战警察使用武力政策的平常性

Q1 Social Sciences
Scott M. Mourtgos, Ian T. Adams, Samuel R. Baty
{"title":"挑战警察使用武力政策的平常性","authors":"Scott M. Mourtgos, Ian T. Adams, Samuel R. Baty","doi":"10.1177/08874034211038346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most use-of-force policies utilized by U.S. police agencies make fundamental ordinal assumptions about officers’ force responses to subject resistance. These policies consist of varying levels of force and resistance along an ordinally ranked continuum of severity. We empirically tested the ordinal assumptions that are ubiquitous to police use-of-force continua within the United States using 1 year’s use-of-force data from a municipal police department. Applying a quantitative technique known as categorical regression with optimal scaling, we found the assumptions of ordinality within the studied department’s use-of-force continuum (which is similar to many police use-of-force continua within the United States) are not met. Specifying physical force as a “lower” force option than less-lethal tools is associated with increased officer injury and decreased subject injury. Our findings call into question use-of-force continua featuring ordinal rankings for varying categories of less-lethal force.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"119 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging the Ordinality of Police Use-of-Force Policy\",\"authors\":\"Scott M. Mourtgos, Ian T. Adams, Samuel R. Baty\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08874034211038346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most use-of-force policies utilized by U.S. police agencies make fundamental ordinal assumptions about officers’ force responses to subject resistance. These policies consist of varying levels of force and resistance along an ordinally ranked continuum of severity. We empirically tested the ordinal assumptions that are ubiquitous to police use-of-force continua within the United States using 1 year’s use-of-force data from a municipal police department. Applying a quantitative technique known as categorical regression with optimal scaling, we found the assumptions of ordinality within the studied department’s use-of-force continuum (which is similar to many police use-of-force continua within the United States) are not met. Specifying physical force as a “lower” force option than less-lethal tools is associated with increased officer injury and decreased subject injury. Our findings call into question use-of-force continua featuring ordinal rankings for varying categories of less-lethal force.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Justice Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"119 - 147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Justice Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211038346\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211038346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

美国警察机构使用的大多数武力使用政策都对警察对受试者抵抗的武力反应做出了基本的顺序假设。这些政策包括不同程度的武力和抵抗,其严重程度一般。我们使用来自一个市警察局的1年武力使用数据,实证检验了在美国警察持续使用武力中普遍存在的顺序假设。应用一种称为最优比例分类回归的定量技术,我们发现所研究部门的武力使用连续性(类似于美国许多警察的武力使用持续性)中的一般性假设没有得到满足。将武力指定为比杀伤力较小的工具“更低”的武力选项,会增加军官伤害,减少受试者伤害。我们的研究结果对连续使用武力提出了质疑,连续使用武力的特点是对不同类别的杀伤力较小的武力进行有序排名。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenging the Ordinality of Police Use-of-Force Policy
Most use-of-force policies utilized by U.S. police agencies make fundamental ordinal assumptions about officers’ force responses to subject resistance. These policies consist of varying levels of force and resistance along an ordinally ranked continuum of severity. We empirically tested the ordinal assumptions that are ubiquitous to police use-of-force continua within the United States using 1 year’s use-of-force data from a municipal police department. Applying a quantitative technique known as categorical regression with optimal scaling, we found the assumptions of ordinality within the studied department’s use-of-force continuum (which is similar to many police use-of-force continua within the United States) are not met. Specifying physical force as a “lower” force option than less-lethal tools is associated with increased officer injury and decreased subject injury. Our findings call into question use-of-force continua featuring ordinal rankings for varying categories of less-lethal force.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Criminal Justice Policy Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Criminal Justice Policy Review (CJPR) is a multidisciplinary journal publishing articles written by scholars and professionals committed to the study of criminal justice policy through experimental and nonexperimental approaches. CJPR is published quarterly and accepts appropriate articles, essays, research notes, interviews, and book reviews. It also provides a forum for special features, which may include invited commentaries, transcripts of significant panels or meetings, position papers, and legislation. To maintain a leadership role in criminal justice policy literature, CJPR will publish articles employing diverse methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信