TASER释放途径:警察使用武力的定性比较分析

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Katharine A. Boyd, Abi Dymond, G. J. Melendez-Torres, D. Fleischer
{"title":"TASER释放途径:警察使用武力的定性比较分析","authors":"Katharine A. Boyd, Abi Dymond, G. J. Melendez-Torres, D. Fleischer","doi":"10.1093/police/paad048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We used a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) to analyse of how key conditions interact within police use of force incidents to contribute to Conducted Energy Devices (CED), commonly known by the brand name TASER, being drawn and red-dotted (0), or drawn, red-dotted, and fired (1). Our sample is 22 incidents (11 red-dotted, 11 red-dotted and fired) between one officer and one person subjected to force recorded in the Use of Force Monitoring Forms for CED incidents from one of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. We identify the most parsimonious causal recipes for both outcomes using five causal conditions –i.e. Intoxication, Intelligence, Prior Knowledge, Weapon Possession, and Aggression. We found three different pathways to CED being red-dotted (0) and five distinct pathways to CED being red-dotted and fired (1). Our findings show that reported intelligence and prior knowledge play central roles in shaping causal recipes, and reported aggression by the member of the public is critical to CED firing decisions.","PeriodicalId":47186,"journal":{"name":"Policing-A Journal of Policy and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pathways to TASER discharge: Qualitative comparative analysis of police use of force\",\"authors\":\"Katharine A. Boyd, Abi Dymond, G. J. Melendez-Torres, D. Fleischer\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/police/paad048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n We used a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) to analyse of how key conditions interact within police use of force incidents to contribute to Conducted Energy Devices (CED), commonly known by the brand name TASER, being drawn and red-dotted (0), or drawn, red-dotted, and fired (1). Our sample is 22 incidents (11 red-dotted, 11 red-dotted and fired) between one officer and one person subjected to force recorded in the Use of Force Monitoring Forms for CED incidents from one of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. We identify the most parsimonious causal recipes for both outcomes using five causal conditions –i.e. Intoxication, Intelligence, Prior Knowledge, Weapon Possession, and Aggression. We found three different pathways to CED being red-dotted (0) and five distinct pathways to CED being red-dotted and fired (1). Our findings show that reported intelligence and prior knowledge play central roles in shaping causal recipes, and reported aggression by the member of the public is critical to CED firing decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policing-A Journal of Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policing-A Journal of Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad048\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policing-A Journal of Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们使用了一套清晰的定性比较分析(csQCA)来分析警察使用武力事件中的关键条件如何相互作用,从而导致传导能量设备(CED),通常被称为TASER,被绘制并用红点表示(0),或绘制并用红色点表示(1)。我们的样本是英格兰和威尔士43支警察部队中的一支警察部队在《CED事件武力使用监测表》中记录的22起事件(11起红点事件、11起红点事件和被解雇事件)。我们使用五个因果条件,即醉酒、智力、先验知识、拥有武器和攻击性,确定了这两种结果的最简约的因果配方。我们发现三种不同的CED途径是红点的(0),五种不同的CE途径是红点化和激发的(1)。我们的研究结果表明,报告的情报和先验知识在形成因果配方中发挥着核心作用,而报告的公众攻击行为对CED解雇决定至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pathways to TASER discharge: Qualitative comparative analysis of police use of force
We used a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) to analyse of how key conditions interact within police use of force incidents to contribute to Conducted Energy Devices (CED), commonly known by the brand name TASER, being drawn and red-dotted (0), or drawn, red-dotted, and fired (1). Our sample is 22 incidents (11 red-dotted, 11 red-dotted and fired) between one officer and one person subjected to force recorded in the Use of Force Monitoring Forms for CED incidents from one of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. We identify the most parsimonious causal recipes for both outcomes using five causal conditions –i.e. Intoxication, Intelligence, Prior Knowledge, Weapon Possession, and Aggression. We found three different pathways to CED being red-dotted (0) and five distinct pathways to CED being red-dotted and fired (1). Our findings show that reported intelligence and prior knowledge play central roles in shaping causal recipes, and reported aggression by the member of the public is critical to CED firing decisions.
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Policing: a Journal of Policy and Practice is a leading policy and practice publication aimed at connecting law enforcement leaders, police researchers, analysts and policy makers, this peer-reviewed journal will contain critical analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics including current law enforcement policies, police reform, political and legal developments, training and education, patrol and investigative operations, accountability, comparative police practices, and human and civil rights. The journal has an international readership and author base. It draws on examples of good practice from around the world and examines current academic research, assessing how that research can be applied both strategically and at ground level. The journal is covered by the following abstracting and indexing services: Criminal Justice Abstracts, Emerging Sources Citation Index, The Standard Periodical Directory.
×
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