Tasers do have their merits

But this is not to say that our community is anything like crime-free, and even though it is policed largely by the consent of its residents, there are times and places where our police officers are faced by hostile and aggressive groups of people. There are also rarer and unpredictable situations in which officers are faced by armed individuals bent on mischief towards themselves or others.

We already have a force that can call on personnel trained in the use of firearms for the most serious cases where, manifestly, lives are in danger. Officers also have access to CS spray for personal protection or to subdue violent criminals. The issue now being examined concerns another non-lethal means of dealing with otherwise uncontrollable offenders – the Taser.

As many will already be aware, Tasers deliver a massive jolt of electricity which is sufficient to incapacitate any human being, even one in the throes of extreme rage or under the influence of drugs. But the available evidence suggests that other than in exceptional circumstances, Tasers are non-lethal and cause no lasting physical damage.

It is, therefore, easy to appreciate why the police would like to add this weapon to their armoury. As well as offering them an additional level of protection in the face of violent assaults, a small device which quite literally delivers a short and very sharp shock must be preferable in most circumstances to even the possible use of lethal firearms.

Those who object to Tasers in the Jersey context are likely to point to the relatively few cases in which permanent harm has been caused elsewhere. They may also object to the increasing ‘militarisation’ of the police, who, it must be admitted, do appear to be extending the range of weaponry at their disposal.

Such objections, however, must be balanced against the clear merits of a piece of hardware which could, in circumstances which are anything but hard to imagine, save lives rather than putting them in danger.