The issue of excited delirium being used to explain sudden deaths of people in police custody has raised controversies. The controversy that surrounds excited delirium revolves around the fact that it is mainly a condition that is widely recognized within the circles of justice department but not by either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the American Psychological Association. Confusion is rife about excited delirium. In the recent past, incidences of deaths during restraining of suspects by police have been on the increase.
Such deaths have baffled medical authorities who have been unable to pinpoint the exact causes when conducting an autopsy. The definition for excited delirium as a condition that leads to death is still controversial and there exists many scholarly studies that accord different definitions. Prior to the recent research there was a raging controversy over whether the condition really excited or whether it was a fabrication of the law enforcement agencies. However, the exist unanimity on some of the symptoms exhibited by the victims before they finally succumb to a quick death.
According to Du pont – Morales et al (151) a victim of excited delirium exhibit “hyperactivity, profuse sweating, incoherence and extreme violence along with a massive release of adrenaline that causes the heart to beat faster. ” Stark (343) also allude to the same description adding that an individual suffering from excited delirium exhibits clinical features such as “violence, aggression, hostility, insensitivity to physical pain or to restraint sprays. ” Physiological features mostly center on dehydration and an elevated level of catecholamine.
The controversy in excited delirium is exacerbated not only by the fact that autopsy reports fail to diagnose clearly the cause of death but also on the fact that not all cases of excited delirium result to death and those that do are usually under the hands of the police. It is this that has led to concerted claims that indeed excited delirium could be used as a cover up to deaths that are as a result of police using excessive force while arresting suspects. History of excited delirium dates back to the 19th century upon the discovery by Dr Luther V.
Bell leading to its early reference as “Bells Mania”. By then most of the victims were exhibiting chronic symptoms, less than what is being manifested in the victims that die during confrontations with the police. Probably due to the increased abuse of drugs such as cocaine which is highly touted as the leading cause, “what we are seeing today is an acute presentation with death occurring minutes or hours after onset of symptoms rather than after weeks of prolonged mental and physiological deterioration.
” (Theresa et al 10) Ligaya (CBC News) presents a number of incidences where a number of victims have died allegedly from excited delirium. Kevin Geldart who was acting aggressively and seemed extra-ordinarily powerful died after police in trying to restrain him used taser and pepper spray. In 2007, Robert Dziekaski turned violent in Vancouver international airport. He was pronounced dead a couple of minutes later after being shocked by a taser.
This is just an example of two cases amongst incidences that have become common and which the police are quick to blame the little know condition of excited delirium, absolving themselves from blame of excessive force. In both instances, the police officers involved were arraigned in court but were cleared of any wrong doing especially as autopsy reports could not pinpoint establish the cause of death.
Despite the arguments presented by the police in defense of those implicated, incidences of excited delirium have brought the attention of the public to the instruments of force being used by the law enforcement agents, particularly the tasers. The safety of tasers has been brought into question. Known as the Conducted Energy Weapons, their safety have been doubted by international bodies such as the Amnesty International who insist “they are not as safe as the manufacturers of these devices and police representatives have led the police and public to believe” (John & Michael)
Criticism has been leveled against the use of excited delirium to defend police brutality. Civil rights movements have particularly been up in arms against this claiming it is an attempt by the authorities to absolve police of crimes committed during arrests. The American Civil Liberties Union decries the fact that its condition has not been widely recognized by the proper medical bodies as it is with other conditions shows that it is more mythical than real.
It (ACLU) “contends that the syndrome is being exploited and used as a medical justification for excessive force. ” (Ross 99) Existing arguments and counter arguments held on the issue notwithstanding, it is apparent that this condition is prevalent and it is the high time that an elaborate plan was laid down to train police officers on the condition, “it is prudent that officers be trained to obtain immediate medical attention for people who exhibit excited delirium symptoms” (Dupont –Morales et al 151).
However such training should not be used as a cover up to incidences of excessive force, it should be seen as a major step forward in creating awareness of the existence of such a condition. It will also go along way in assisting law enforcement officers make more informed choices in regard to the restraining method to employ depending on the characteristics exhibited by the suspect.