As long as the operator is within range, he or she can, at no personal risk, administer an incapacitating shock. Resistance is futile. It is precisely the implacability of these devices, combined with their benign appearance and even names, that makes them truly frightening. The Los Angeles case is instructive in this regard, not for pointing the finger of blame toward particular individuals, but for calling to our attention the way in which this seemingly harmless and totally effective device can be abused. Despite protests to the contrary by Amnesty International and others, stun belts are appropriate in the courtroom if the person would otherwise be visibly constrained by shackles, which might affect how a jury responds to him or her.
Stun belts are appropriate in other situations as well.
For example, when a dangerous inmate is taken to an outside medical facility, a stun belt is a highly effective way of protecting those with whom the prisoner comes in contact. And stun belts can provide greater protection for the prisoners themselves, as well as guards and bystanders. If one prisoner assaults another, for example, the assault can be quickly and effectively ended. The same could not be said for the use of clubs and, of course, if guns are used, there is greater danger to everyone. Other situations are more troubling.