A few weeks ago, a bill to incorporate the use of so-called “non-lethal weapons” into the official use of the Police began to be debated in the Neuquén Legislature. This is a proposal presented by deputy Marcelo Bermúdez, in line with the policies of punitive populism that the national government has been proposing, especially from the Ministry of Security led by Patricia Bullrich. The project – without foundations and only a page and a half – aspires to authorize “the Police of the Province of Neuquén to use non-lethal weapons to carry out their tasks of prevention, detection and cessation of crime.”and provides in a few articles some details of the conditions under which this measure should be implemented.
What we are interested in highlighting first is the need to stop talking about “non-lethal weapons” and instead use, without euphemisms, the terminology used not only by all human and civil rights organizations and institutions in the world, but also by the own manufacturers of this type of weapons; that is, “less lethal weapons” or “weapons of less lethality.” This is not a semantic issue. Because language has great performative power, and therefore it is not the same to say and establish in common sense that a weapon is “non-lethal” instead of “less lethal.”
Every weapon has the power to be lethal depending on its use, and even “less lethal” weapons can be lethal or cause serious injury depending on who uses them and on whom and in what context they are used. Therefore, insisting on the name “non-lethal weapons” puts us in front of the possibility that we may uncritically perceive – and therefore, confuse and misinform – that these instruments lack the possibility of killing. or seriously injure, which is, in light of international statistics on this matter, absolutely false.
The supposed “non-lethal” nature of these weapons encourages their exponential use; Their “non-lethal” conception encourages trigger-happy action and, as Paul Roger has shown in the case of France, “the availability of non-lethal weapons leads law enforcement to hit, gas and shoot faster and faster. The use of non-lethal weapons has become trivialized and it is absurd to claim that they allow order to be maintained in a more humane way, quite the opposite: they lead to greater brutality.”
And they are supported not only by international data, but also by local data. The death of Carlos Fuentealba was caused by a non-lethal weapon, José Alveal lost an eye due to the use of a non-lethal weapon and Facundo Agüero was left with severe brain damage for life due to a police beating without the use of a lethal weapon. To mention just three emblematic cases, among many others.
On the other hand, the bill presented by Bermúdez does not define what type of weapons it refers to, and we consider that this is an important gap.
Devices to cause electric shocks (such as TASER guns, but there are others too) are not the same as kinetic impact devices. (such as plastic projectiles or rubber bullets), that irritants (such as tear gas or pepper spray) -these last two included within the BYRNA- weapons, or acoustic devices to generate disorientation.
In fact, currently the Police and Security Forces have the possibility of using tear gas, batons, stun bullets, tonfas, rubber bullets and pepper spray. What would be the novelty that this law would incorporate?
Should, we believebe very explicit in the project what type of weapons are being talked about, which ones would be incorporated into the existing ones, and analyze their use from a human rights perspective. and civil, within the framework of the National and Provincial constitutions, and the International Treaties on this matter.
Recently, Victoria Darraidou, Coordinator of the CELS Democratic Security and Institutional Violence team, recalled that the United Nations raised a special alarm when some of these weapons are fired at close range, but also when they are launched from afar with an undefined objective.
In addition, “it warns about the aggravated damage that they can cause when they are used on people with certain characteristics, such as pregnant people, people with signs of alcohol or drug intoxication, people with mental illness, those with a very thin build and older adults, among other cases.” ”.
A diagnosis is missing
Finally – and for now, since there is much more to say but we are limited by space – something that we consider substantial and extremely important:
What is the diagnosis from which this project emerges? What are the objective criteria (data, statistics, reports) from which we assume that the use of this type of weapons is necessary in the province of Neuquén? How many and what situations in which, in the province of Neuquén, the use of less lethal weapons could have resulted in a better task of “prevention, detection and cessation of crime”, as indicated in the first article of the draft Law? What are the statistics on the use of police force in recent years that, if they had less lethal weapons, would have resulted in a greater guarantee of human rights?
This lack of diagnosis in the project is not minor. As much as the absence of a citizen security project or proposal that is based on that diagnosis (absent here) and include in a reasoned manner the need to incorporate this type of weapons into the weapons already available.
In this sense, we believe precisely that moving forward with a proposal to incorporate a new type of weaponry into the police and security forces deserves a broader debate, which does not exhaust itself in the legislative space but transcends these institutional walls, without haste and in depth. ; not only about this specific issue, but about what model of citizen security we want.
Because advancing in the incorporation of a new type of weapons to the police forces to the existing one, Without a prior diagnosis and without discussing what we understand by security and from what theoretical framework we think about it, it is putting the cart before the horse.
The debate on the use of “less lethal” weapons requires an in-depth analysis that considers both ethical and political aspects, as well as a comprehensive approach to citizen security that is not limited to the prevention of street crime, against property or people, but must be addressed from the underlying causes of violence.
It is crucial that any decision in this regard be supported by a clear and substantiated diagnosis, as well as for a broad and transparent public debate that involves all sectors of society.
Security cannot be reduced to the mere technicalization of the repressive apparatus, but must be approached from a multidimensional perspective that promotes social justice and unrestricted respect for human rights.
* Professor at the National University of Comahue. Commissioner of the Provincial Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Province of Neuquén.
**Professor at the National University of Río Negro. Commissioner of the Provincial Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the province of Neuquén.
