Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies that have deployed Conducted Energy Devices and a matched comparison group that have not (Record no. 390950)

001 - ETIQUETA DE REGISTO
Identificador do registo 390950
100 ## - DADOS GERAIS DE PROCESSAMENTO
Dados gerais de processamento 20120522d2009 y0pory50 ba
101 ## - LÍNGUA DA PUBLICAÇÃO
Língua do texto, banda sonora, etc. Inglês
200 ## - TÍTULO E MENÇÃO DE RESPONSABILIDADE
Título próprio Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies that have deployed Conducted Energy Devices and a matched comparison group that have not
Indicação genérica do tipo de material Recurso eletrónico
Informação de outro título a quasi-experimental evaluation
Primeira menção de responsabilidade Bruce Taylor ... [et al.]
210 ## - PUBLICAÇÃO, DISTRIBUIÇÃO, ETC.
Lugar da publicação, distribuição, etc. Washington, D.C.
Nome do editor, distribuidor, etc. Police Executive Research Forum
Data da publicação, distribuição, etc. 2009
215 ## - DESCRIÇÃO FÍSICA
Indicação específica do tipo de material e extensão do item 1 CD-ROM
Dimensões 12 cm
300 ## - NOTAS GERAIS
Texto da nota Research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. Award ner. 2006-IJ-CX-0028. Resumo inserto no próprio documento. Ficheiro de 1,84 MB em formato PDF (100 p.). Disponível também através de: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237965.pdf. Acedido a 22 de maio de 2012.
330 ## - SÚMULA OU RESUMO
Texto da nota "How law enforcement agencies (LEAs) manage the use-of-force by officers is perhaps one of the most important tasks that they will undertake. One weapon that has been advanced as a way to reduce injuries for officers and suspects is the Conducted Energy Device (CED). The purpose of our project, conducted from late 2006 to 2008, was to produce scientifically valid results that will inform LEA executives’ decisions regarding CED use. The goal of our study was to produce practical information that can help LEAs establish guidelines that assist in the effective design of CED deployment programs that support increased safety for officers and citizens. We conducted one of the first quasi-experiments to compare LEAs with CED deployment (n=7) to a set of matched LEAs (n=6) that do not deploy CEDs on a variety of safety outcomes, controlling for a variety of incident factors (force used by officer, time frame of incident, suspect race/gender/age, suspect resistant behavior, and suspect weapon use) and agency-level factors (agency policy on CEDs, size/density of LEA, and population density for jurisdiction). For the LEAs that deployed CEDs, we collected two years of data before CED deployment and two years of data after CED deployment. For the non-CED sites, we collected four years of data over a similar period. Overall, we found that the CED sites were associated with improved safety outcomes when compared to a group of matched non-CED sites on six of nine safety measures, including reductions in (1) officer injuries, (2–3) suspect injuries and severe injuries, (4–5) officers and suspects receiving injuries requiring medical attention, and (6) suspects receiving an injury that resulted in the suspect being taken to a hospital or other medical facility. (We refer to this last category as “hospitalization,” although we have no data on the extent to which officers or suspects who went to a hospital or other medical facility were admitted and stayed overnight, as opposed to simply receiving an evaluation or treatment and being released.) Also within CED agencies, in some cases the actual use of a CED by an officer is associated with improved safety outcomes compared to other less-lethal weapons. For five of the eight comparisons, the cases where an officer used a CED were associated with the lowest or second lowest rate of injuries, injuries requiring medical attention, or injuries officer was taken to a medical facility such as hospital or medical clinic for treatment of an injury due to a use of- force incident requiring “hospitalization” (see comment in previous paragraph). There were no differences between the CED and the non-CED sites on the outcomes of the number of suspect deaths, officer severe injuries, and officer injuries requiring hospitalization. The evidence from our study suggests that CEDs can be an effective weapon in helping prevent or minimize physical struggles in use-of-force cases. LEAs should consider the utility of the CED as a way to avoid up-close combative situations and reduce injuries to officers and suspects."
606 ## - NOME COMUM USADO COMO ASSUNTO
Elemento de entrada ESTUDO DE CASOS
ID Autoridade 322367
606 ## - NOME COMUM USADO COMO ASSUNTO
Elemento de entrada ARMA NÃO LETAL
ID Autoridade 328993
606 ## - NOME COMUM USADO COMO ASSUNTO
Elemento de entrada USO DE FORÇA
ID Autoridade 342511
606 ## - NOME COMUM USADO COMO ASSUNTO
Elemento de entrada TÉCNICA POLICIAL
ID Autoridade 120292
606 ## - NOME COMUM USADO COMO ASSUNTO
Elemento de entrada TÉCNICA DE IMOBILIZAÇÃO
ID Autoridade 343583
606 ## - NOME COMUM USADO COMO ASSUNTO
Elemento de entrada POLÍCIA
ID Autoridade 234553
606 ## - NOME COMUM USADO COMO ASSUNTO
Elemento de entrada APLICAÇÃO DA LEI
ID Autoridade 410442
710 ## - NOME DE COLECTIVIDADE - RESPONSABILIDADE PRINCIPAL
Palavra de ordem PERF'S QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION ON DEPLOYMENT OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
ID Autoridade 356770
955 ## -
-- Oferta
995 ## - LOCALIZAÇÃO E INFORMAÇÃO DE EXEMPLARES
-- 0
-- PJCD_200_000000000000000
-- 2022-06-06
-- 2022-06-06
-- 0
Holdings
Número de registo Número interno Koha (auto-gerado) Biblioteca de aquisição Biblioteca de empréstimo Código de barras Cota Tipo de documento Forma de aquisição
PJCD200 422813 Biblioteca da Polícia Judiciária Biblioteca da Polícia Judiciária PJ1CD200_12 PJCD200 Monografias Oferta