I posted this story because it highlights the paradox that decreasing the lethality of weapons increases the risk that they will be abused.<p>The purpose of the electroshock belt is to protect people in the courtroom if a situation arises in which the defendant poses a risk of imminent violence. Before the adoption of that technology, the machine employed for the same purpose was the bailiff's firearm.<p>It would be unthinkable for a judge to order the bailiff to shoot a defendant for refusing to stand up while addressing the court. But this judge apparently deemed it acceptable to torture the defendant by administering a five-second electric shock that made him writhe and scream in front of the jury.<p>The judge's behavior was a gross abuse of power, and I'm not saying we should eliminate this technology. Electroshock belts seem valuable for a number of reasons, including the fact that they allow fewer defendants to be tried in full restraints, which may prejudice jurors.<p>Nevertheless, the entire sequence of events offers a chilling case study about the unintended side effects of decreasing the negative consequences that result from using force.