Armed Drones and Ethical Policing: Risk, Perception, and the Tele-Present Officer.

Q2 Social Sciences Criminal Justice Ethics Pub Date : 2021-06-19 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/0731129X.2021.1943844
Christian Enemark
{"title":"Armed Drones and Ethical Policing: Risk, Perception, and the Tele-Present Officer.","authors":"Christian Enemark","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2021.1943844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethical analysis of armed drones has to date focused heavily on their use in foreign wars or counterterrorism operations, but it is important also to consider the potential use of armed drones in domestic law enforcement. Governments around the world are already making drones available to police for purposes including border control, criminal investigation, rescue missions, traffic management, and the monitoring of public assemblies. Unarmed and controlled remotely, these camera-equipped aircraft provide a powerful and mobile surveillance capacity that can be highly effective in detecting suspicious activity and guiding police operations. In addition, for situations where criminal violence presents a danger to public safety, some governments appear to be readying their police to neutralize threats using drones that are also equipped with weapons. In anticipation of that potential development, this article discusses whether or how police should use armed drones. It applies some of the established ethical principles on police use of force (necessity, proportionality, and precaution), and it explores some of the challenges a drone-using, \"tele-present\" police officer is likely to face in seeking to adhere to those principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"40 2","pages":"124-144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1943844","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2021.1943844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Ethical analysis of armed drones has to date focused heavily on their use in foreign wars or counterterrorism operations, but it is important also to consider the potential use of armed drones in domestic law enforcement. Governments around the world are already making drones available to police for purposes including border control, criminal investigation, rescue missions, traffic management, and the monitoring of public assemblies. Unarmed and controlled remotely, these camera-equipped aircraft provide a powerful and mobile surveillance capacity that can be highly effective in detecting suspicious activity and guiding police operations. In addition, for situations where criminal violence presents a danger to public safety, some governments appear to be readying their police to neutralize threats using drones that are also equipped with weapons. In anticipation of that potential development, this article discusses whether or how police should use armed drones. It applies some of the established ethical principles on police use of force (necessity, proportionality, and precaution), and it explores some of the challenges a drone-using, "tele-present" police officer is likely to face in seeking to adhere to those principles.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
武装无人机和道德警务:风险、感知和远程警务人员。
迄今为止,对武装无人机的伦理分析主要集中在它们在对外战争或反恐行动中的使用上,但考虑武装无人机在国内执法中的潜在用途也很重要。世界各国政府已经开始向警方提供无人机,用于边境控制、刑事调查、救援任务、交通管理和公共集会监控等目的。这些配备摄像头的飞机没有武器,可以远程控制,提供强大的移动监视能力,可以非常有效地发现可疑活动并指导警方行动。此外,在犯罪暴力对公共安全构成威胁的情况下,一些政府似乎正在准备让他们的警察使用配备武器的无人机来消除威胁。鉴于这种潜在的发展趋势,本文讨论了警察是否应该使用武装无人机,以及如何使用。它应用了一些关于警察使用武力的既定道德原则(必要性,相称性和预防性),并探讨了使用无人机的“远程呈现”警察在寻求遵守这些原则时可能面临的一些挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Ethics Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Exposing, Reversing, and Inheriting Crimes as Traumas from the Neurosciences to Epigenetics: Why Criminal Law Cannot Yet Afford A(nother) Biology-induced Overhaul Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility Sentencing, Artificial Intelligence, and Condemnation: A Reply to Taylor Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics of the Rule Against Unreasonably Splitting a Case Ethical Resource Allocation in Policing: Why Policing Requires a Different Approach from Healthcare
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1