The police have, for a long, come up with various strategies for controlling the crowds. Most of the methods are sanctioned because they are seen as lethal and other allowed. Police come up with inventions that are less lethal but succeed in crowd control, especially during protests. One of these inventions is pepper spray that has gained widespread use over time. The use of pepper spray has continued for a long time and does not seem to reduce in use despite the widespread negative criticism. The use of pepper spray is still prevalent due to identification and certification. The paper provides a summary and analysis of the reading with attention to pepper spray by law enforcement agencies.
Certification means that the professionals involved in pepper spray technology argue that the innovation is useful, and hence its use should go on. Identification is the idea that the current technology users see themselves similar to the previous ones and hence no need for doing away with the technology. Certification and identification have led to the diffusion of pepper spray technology despite the harmful elements associated with its use. Although the use of pepper as a weapon has existed for a long, the technology was approved in 1987 by the FBI as an agent for subduing aggressive individuals. The use of pepper spray spread very quickly since then, and by 1993, more than 70% of all police used it to prevent violence and subdue threatening individuals. Pepper was initially targeted for use in crowd control, but by the 1990s, it had replaced other methods like a baton. It was increasingly used to subdue suspects and protestors in both Canada and the US.
The use of pepper spray was, however, dogged with a lot of controversies and excessive use of force. Studies were conducted, although it was later revealed that law enforcement officers received bribes to ensure that the use gained approval. Multiple uses of the strategy against protestors attracted public outrage, mainly because it led to excessive force. In Canada, pepper spray’s use attracted the legislature’s attention that started coming up with regulations to handle the problems. Negative feedback from human rights groups and judges forced the police to reduce the strategy’s use in the late 1990s, although some police units continued with the practice. Police, however, continued to use the strategy since it is a unique agency, and in most cases, changes are not abrupt but influenced by multiple other factors. There exists a thin blue line when it comes to police identity since police continue using methods like pepper spray as a result of favored opinion by the policymakers.
The author is looking at demonstrating how the police have been using excessive force towards the people, but law enforcement institutions support this approach. The author uses multiple examples to illustrate how pepper spray has been problematic, especially in its application. Problems emerge as a result of the long-held ideas of certification and identification by the police. According to Wood, “The certification of pepper spray by police leaders, and identification of new adopters with earlier users of pepper spray, facilitated the diffusion of pepper spray as a crowd-control tool, despite two policing incidents in 1997 that generated intense criticism (95).” In this case, the use of pepper spray has negative impacts on the people. Police and other law enforcement agencies receive support on the use. The actions makes the “thin blue line” stronger as police use less lethal force globally without ceasing.
Certification is a great hindrance to the police, and law enforcement reduces the use of pepper spray and other lethal force. Although the use of pepper spray has been associated with many negative feedbacks, it has not stopped as a result of certification. Wood Says, The Incorporation of an innovation by a police force is particularly likely when it is visibly certified by a high-status opinion leader, respected by the potential adopter, and whose context is seen as similar to the adopter’s context (107). Certification happens to be one of the most influencing factors in the use of pepper spray. However, it is worth noting that these influential officers can be compromised. In most cases, they certify the use of certain products because the manufacturers have influenced them. Other countries allow the spray simply because it is approved in the US, which is not right. One of the major limitations of the reading is that it does not provide many cases where pepper spray has been successful. The reading convinces the reader to accept a particular position with little accommodation to divergent views.
Conclusion
The article dwells on the use of pepper spray by law enforcement agencies in Canada and the USA. The use of the technique is continuous as a result of support due to certification and identification. The article provides cases where the user has led to widespread challenges and condemnation. In particular, certification makes the habit look good in the eyes of the police and other countries. It is thus important to look at the issue and engage in corrective action. mm