Should We Give Law Enforcement Killer Robots?

Police officers are not meant to be arbiters of justice. It’s not their job to determine guilt or decide who lives or dies. But sometimes, they are placed in that position anyways. Such was the case in 2016, when Dallas police entered a standoff with a gunman responsible for killing 5 police officers. The standoff was ended with a previously unprecedented tactic: strapping a bomb to a robot and blowing him up.

The move was justified for how it was able to neutralize the gunman while removing officers from danger. Ultimately, it reduced casualties. It’s easy to see where proponents are coming from, one only needs to think of any of the incidents over the past decade in which single gunmen were able to cause mass casualties. 

However, it was also met with criticism, mainly that it encouraged excessive force. By physically removing police from the scene of the crime through robots, critics worry that an emotional distance will be created as well, and police will be more likely to take life. Even though police departments may say they would only use such technology in extreme situations, critics still warn about further militarizing the police. Giving law enforcement greater access to technology that increases the distance between them and the people they protect can erode public trust, especially with poor communities and communities of color that historically have been targeted and underserved by law enforcement.

On December 6th, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on a policy allowing the use of robots by police to deploy deadly force. If it were to go through, it would only need to be signed by the Mayor (who expressed support for the proposal) before becoming law. This is the first time a policy like this will be approved in the country, and set a precedent for other American cities. 

Mass shootings and gun violence are problems in the US. However, they aren’t problems that are universal. There are countries that aren’t facing this same epidemic, for example, Singapore, which has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the world. Certainly, giving robots bombs was not the key to their status as one of the safest countries in the world. It is clear that the US is seeking high-tech solutions to its problems with gun violence, when there already exist many low-tech solutions. While stricter gun laws are one avenue, one can also look at the reasons gun violence is so prevalent, and overwhelmingly, the comorbidity seem to be poverty. Instead of seeking high-tech solutions for gun violence, US cities should focus on policies that aid poor and marginalized communities that will hopefully make the need for such technologies obsolete.

Sources:

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-11-23/study-youth-in-poor-areas-more-likely-to-die-from-gun-violence

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-violence-by-country