Citation

Grove N, Grove C, Peschel O, Kunz SN. Rechtsmedizin 2016; 26(5): 418-424.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s00194-016-0117-y

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The introduction of non-lethal weapons for police and special trained forces is justified with reduced impacts on health and safety in for all those involved in missions. Current medical research therefore focuses on health-related effects on a case by case perspective. A purely economic view, however, identifies cost/benefit-related facts only regarding cost of ownership comprising materials, service, replacement and training. While each approach is reasonable and adequate from both points of view, we aim at enhancing this discussion by an overall medico-economic dimension. This article aims to shed light on the overall welfare effects of substituting traditional ballistic firearms with non-lethal weapons using the example of conducted electrical weapons (CEW), such as the Taser. In order to answer this question the total costs of traditional ballistic firearms are compared to the total cost of CEW. Consequently, probability of use serves as an antecedent in the model, whereas the cost of application results as a logical consequence. Based on these considerations, the threshold level of application can be determined. The model was tested with a dataset consisting of Taser applications in England and Wales from 2009 and 2010. As a result, the overall welfare effects of substituting traditional ballistic firearms with non-lethal weapons for police and special armed forces can be estimated and therefore contribute to the decision-making process from a medico-economic welfare perspective.

Language: en