TEDxCanberra
Stephen Coleman: Non-lethal weapons, a moral hazard?
Stephen Coleman: 使用非殺傷性武器的道德危機
Filmed:
Readability: 4.2
538,518 views
胡椒噴霧和電機搶越來越多的被警察和軍事人員所使用。並且，越來越多更先進的非殺傷性武器如熱射線也正在研發當中。在這個視頻中，倫理家，Stephen Coleman探討了引進這些武器的一些出乎意料的後果。他並且提出了一些具有挑戰性的問題。
Stephen Coleman - Ethicist
Stephen Coleman studies applied ethics, particularly the ethics of military and police force, and their application to human rights. Full bio
Stephen Coleman studies applied ethics, particularly the ethics of military and police force, and their application to human rights. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
What I want to talk to you about today
0
0
2000
今天我將跟各位探討的
00:17
is some of the problems that the military of the Western world --
1
2000
4000
是西方世界的軍隊
00:21
Australia, United States, U.K. and so on --
2
6000
3000
諸如澳大利亞,美國,英國等等
00:24
face in some of the deployments
3
9000
2000
在調遣部署時所面臨的一些問題.
00:26
that they're dealing with in the modern world at this time.
4
11000
3000
在調遣部署時所面臨的一些問題.
00:29
If you think about the sorts of things
5
14000
2000
如果你試想一下 --
00:31
that we've sent Australian military personnel to in recent years,
6
16000
3000
近幾年我們派給澳大利亞軍隊的任務；
00:34
we've got obvious things like Iraq and Afghanistan,
7
19000
3000
如伊拉克和阿富汗
00:37
but you've also got things like East Timor
8
22000
2000
還有东帝汶 【位于东南亚】 —
00:39
and the Solomon Islands and so on.
9
24000
2000
和所罗门群岛 ，等等，
00:41
And a lot of these deployments
10
26000
2000
很多諸如此類的軍事任務--
00:43
that we're actually sending military personnel to these days
11
28000
3000
很多諸如此類的軍事任務--
00:46
aren't traditional wars.
12
31000
2000
並不是我們所熟悉的傳統戰爭。
00:48
In fact, a lot of the jobs
13
33000
2000
事實上，很多這些我們讓士兵做的事情
00:50
that we're asking the military personnel to do in these situations
14
35000
3000
事實上，很多這些我們讓士兵做的事情
00:53
are ones that, in their own countries, in Australia, the United States and so on,
15
38000
3000
在像澳大利亞和美國這樣的國家
00:56
would actually be done by police officers.
16
41000
3000
都是由警察包辦的。
00:59
And so there's a bunch of problems that come up
17
44000
2000
所以，當士兵從事此類任務時 --
01:01
for military personnel in these situations,
18
46000
2000
會遇到很多問題。
01:03
because they're doing things that they haven't really been trained for,
19
48000
3000
因為他們對這樣的任務並沒有受過良好的訓練，
01:06
and they're doing things
20
51000
2000
另外，真正從事此類任務的 --
01:08
that those who do them in their own countries
21
53000
3000
警務人員接受的是完全不同的培訓，
01:11
are trained very differently for
22
56000
2000
警務人員接受的是完全不同的培訓，
01:13
and equipped very differently for.
23
58000
2000
就連他們的裝備也截然不同。
01:15
Now there's a bunch of reasons why
24
60000
2000
當然這裡有很多原因為什麼 --
01:17
we actually do send military personnel
25
62000
2000
我們會派遣士兵 --
01:19
rather than police to do these jobs.
26
64000
2000
而不是警察去做這些事情。
01:21
If Australia had to send a thousand people tomorrow
27
66000
3000
假如澳大利亞要在一夜之間調動一千個人 --
01:24
to West Papua for example,
28
69000
2000
去西巴布亚。
01:26
we don't have a thousand police officers hanging around
29
71000
2000
我們沒有一千名警務人員
01:28
that could just go tomorrow
30
73000
2000
在那明天就可以馬上走人。
01:30
and we do have a thousand soldiers that could go.
31
75000
2000
但我們的確有一千名士兵隨時都能走。
01:32
So when we have to send someone, we send the military --
32
77000
3000
所以，當我們要調動人時，我們會派這些士兵去，
01:35
because they're there, they're available
33
80000
2000
因為他們就在那隨時準備待命。
01:37
and, heck, they're used to going off and doing these things
34
82000
2000
在某種意義上 --
01:39
and living by themselves
35
84000
2000
這些士兵的確也能勝任此類任務
01:41
and not having all this extra support.
36
86000
2000
他們習慣了在沒有後勤的情況下，去這去哪，做這做那的。
01:43
So they are able to do it in that sense.
37
88000
2000
他們習慣了在沒有後勤的情況下，去這去哪，做這做那的。
01:45
But they aren't trained in the same way that police officers are
38
90000
3000
但是問題就在於他們所受的訓練與警務人員的不同，
01:48
and they're certainly not equipped in the same way police officers are.
39
93000
3000
當然他們的裝備也不一樣。
01:51
And so this has raised a bunch of problems for them
40
96000
2000
所以，士兵在處理這類事務時會遇到很多麻煩。
01:53
when dealing with these sorts of issues.
41
98000
2000
所以，士兵在處理這類事務時會遇到很多麻煩。
01:55
One particular thing that's come up
42
100000
2000
一個特別讓我感興趣的問題是，
01:57
that I am especially interested in
43
102000
2000
一個特別讓我感興趣的問題是，
01:59
is the question of whether,
44
104000
2000
當我們派遣這些士兵去做這些任務時，
02:01
when we're sending military personnel to do these sorts of jobs,
45
106000
2000
我們應不應該讓他們攜帶不同的裝備
02:03
we ought to be equipping them differently,
46
108000
2000
我們應不應該讓他們攜帶不同的裝備
02:05
and in particular, whether we ought to be giving them access
47
110000
2000
確切的說，我們應不應該讓士兵們配備
02:07
to some of the sorts of non-lethal weapons that police have.
48
112000
3000
警務人員所使用的非殺傷性武器。
02:10
Since they're doing some of these same jobs,
49
115000
2000
既然這些士兵們也在做
02:12
maybe they should have some of those things.
50
117000
2000
和警察他們做的一樣的事情，他們也應該裝備的一樣。
02:14
And of course, there's a range of places
51
119000
2000
當然，你會想在很多地方，
02:16
where you'd think those things would be really useful.
52
121000
2000
這些非殺傷性武器還是挺管用的。
02:18
So for example, when you've got military checkpoints.
53
123000
3000
比如說，軍事關卡。
02:21
If people are approaching these checkpoints
54
126000
2000
如果有人靠近這些關卡，
02:23
and the military personnel there are unsure
55
128000
2000
並且，士兵們不知道
02:25
whether this person's hostile or not.
56
130000
2000
此人是不是會具有危險性。
02:27
Say this person approaching here,
57
132000
2000
他們會想
02:29
and they say, "Well is this a suicide bomber or not?
58
134000
2000
"這是不是人肉炸彈？”
02:31
Have they got something hidden under their clothing? What's going to happen?"
59
136000
2000
“他們是不是藏了一些東西在他們的衣服裡面?到底會發生什麽
?”
?”
02:33
They don't know whether this person's hostile or not.
60
138000
2000
你不知道這人是不是心懷鬼胎
02:35
If this person doesn't follow directions,
61
140000
2000
如果這人不聽從士兵們的指示
02:37
then they may end up shooting them
62
142000
2000
士兵很可能就會開槍射擊
02:39
and then find out afterward
63
144000
2000
等事情過後，他們才能知道
02:41
either, yes, we shot the right person,
64
146000
2000
“好啊！我們殺對人了。”
02:43
or, no, this was just an innocent person
65
148000
2000
“不！我們殺了無辜的老百姓。“
02:45
who didn't understand what was going on.
66
150000
2000
“不！我們殺了無辜的老百姓。“
02:47
So if they had non-lethal weapons
67
152000
2000
但是，如果士兵們有非殺傷性武器
02:49
then they would say, "Well we can use them in that sort of situation.
68
154000
2000
他們會想，”在這些情況下，我們可以用這個。”
02:51
If we shoot someone who wasn't hostile,
69
156000
2000
”至少，當我們搞錯人的時候
02:53
at least we haven't killed them."
70
158000
2000
，我們不會殺了他們。“
02:55
Another situation.
71
160000
2000
還有一個例子。
02:57
This photo is actually from one of the missions
72
162000
2000
這張照片是拍自1990年末，巴爾幹半島的
02:59
in the Balkans in the late 1990s.
73
164000
2000
一次任務。
03:01
Situation's a little bit different
74
166000
2000
這次任務和上一個有所不同。
03:03
where perhaps they know someone who's hostile,
75
168000
2000
這次，士兵們知道誰是敵人
03:05
where they've got someone shooting at them
76
170000
2000
有人很明顯的對士兵們表現出敵意，
03:07
or doing something else that's clearly hostile, throwing rocks, whatever.
77
172000
3000
如開槍，扔石頭什麼的。
03:10
But if they respond, there's a range of other people around,
78
175000
3000
但是，如果士兵在這個時候回擊的話，
03:13
who are innocent people who might also get hurt --
79
178000
3000
很可能會連類一大群無辜的老百姓。
03:16
be collateral damage that the military often doesn't want to talk about.
80
181000
4000
軍事人員一般都不喜歡談論像這樣的附帶損害
03:20
So again, they would say, "Well if we have access to non-lethal weapons,
81
185000
2000
所以，他們會想，“如果有非殺傷性武器的話，
03:22
if we've got someone we know is hostile,
82
187000
2000
然後我們知道誰是敵意的，
03:24
we can do something to deal with them
83
189000
2000
至少我們不會束手無策
03:26
and know that if we hit anyone else around the place,
84
191000
2000
，就算是傷及了無辜
03:28
at least, again, we're not going to kill them."
85
193000
2000
至少我們不會殺死這些老百姓。
03:30
Another suggestion has been,
86
195000
2000
還有一個建議是，
03:32
since we're putting so many robots in the field,
87
197000
2000
現在越來越多的機器人被使用在不同的任務中
03:34
we can see the time coming
88
199000
2000
我們也能預想到
03:36
where they're actually going to be sending robots out in the field that are autonomous.
89
201000
3000
在不久的將來，完全自動化的機器人會被派遣到戰場上。
03:39
They're going to make their own decisions about who to shoot and who not to shoot
90
204000
3000
他們會在沒有人類控制的情況下，
03:42
without a human in the loop.
91
207000
2000
自我決定要向誰射擊。
03:44
And so the suggestion is, well hey,
92
209000
2000
所以，一個建議是，
03:46
if we're going to send robots out and allow them to do this,
93
211000
2000
如果我們真的要派遣機器人去執行這些任務
03:48
maybe it would be a good idea, again, with these things
94
213000
3000
，給機器人裝備非殺傷性武器可能是更明智之舉
03:51
if they were armed with non-lethal weapons
95
216000
2000
，給機器人裝備非殺傷性武器可能是更明智之舉
03:53
so that if the robot makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person,
96
218000
3000
這樣的話，就算機器人做錯了決定，射錯了人
03:56
again, they haven't actually killed them.
97
221000
2000
至少他們不會殺了他們。
03:58
Now there's a whole range of different sorts of non-lethal weapons,
98
223000
3000
現在有不同種類，各種各樣的非殺傷性武器，
04:01
some of which are obviously available now,
99
226000
2000
其中一些現在已經在使用了，
04:03
some of which they're developing.
100
228000
2000
還有一些正在研製當中。
04:05
So you've got traditional things like pepper spray,
101
230000
2000
所以，我們有傳統的非殺傷武器如胡椒喷雾剂
04:07
O.C. spray up at the top there,
102
232000
2000
O.C.噴霧在這上面
04:09
or Tasers over here.
103
234000
2000
或者泰瑟枪（電擊槍）在這。
04:11
The one on the top right here is actually a dazzling laser
104
236000
3000
在右上角是一把刺眼的鐳射槍。
04:14
intended to just blind the person momentarily
105
239000
2000
這種鐳射槍可以讓敵人暫時失明，
04:16
and disorient them.
106
241000
2000
從而使他們失去方向感。
04:18
You've got non-lethal shotgun rounds
107
243000
2000
我們還有裝有橡膠子彈的非殺傷性霰弹猎枪，
04:20
that contain rubber pellets
108
245000
2000
我們還有裝有橡膠子彈的非殺傷性霰弹獵槍，
04:22
instead of the traditional metal ones.
109
247000
2000
用來取代傳統的金屬制的子彈。
04:24
And this one in the middle here, the large truck,
110
249000
3000
還有，在這個圖像中間的這輛大卡車
04:27
is actually called the Active Denial System --
111
252000
2000
其實是美軍現在正在使用的，主动压制系统。
04:29
something the U.S. military is working on at the moment.
112
254000
3000
其實是美軍現在正在使用的，主动压制系统。
04:32
It's essentially a big microwave transmitter.
113
257000
3000
它在本質上其實是一個大的微波傳導器。
04:35
It's sort of your classic idea of a heat ray.
114
260000
3000
它就是所謂的熱射線。
04:38
It goes out to a really long distance,
115
263000
3000
比起其它的東西（輻射）
04:41
compared to any of these other sorts of things.
116
266000
2000
熱射線能夠延伸到更遠的距離。
04:43
And anybody who is hit with this
117
268000
2000
被（熱射線）擊中的人
04:45
feels this sudden burst of heat
118
270000
2000
會感到瞬間的灼熱感，
04:47
and just wants to get out of the way.
119
272000
2000
使得他（她）都想躲開。
04:49
It is a lot more sophisticated than a microwave oven,
120
274000
3000
當然，它比一個微波爐要來的複雜，
04:52
but it is basically boiling the water molecules
121
277000
2000
但是，它其實就是在煮你皮膚表面的水分子。
04:54
in the very surface level of your skin.
122
279000
2000
但是，它其實就是在煮你皮膚表面的水分子。
04:56
So you feel this massive heat,
123
281000
2000
所以，你會感到極度的熱量
04:58
and you go, "I want to get out of the way."
124
283000
2000
然後你會想，“我想離開這裡！”
05:00
And they're thinking, well this will be really useful
125
285000
3000
所以，他們（軍事人員）想，這東西可能在像
05:03
in places like where we need to clear a crowd out of a particular area,
126
288000
2000
驅趕人群的這樣的場合中會很管用。
05:05
if the crowd is being hostile.
127
290000
2000
如果人群懷有敵意，
05:07
If we need to keep people away from a particular place,
128
292000
3000
然後，我們想讓這群人遠離某些地方
05:10
we can do that with these sorts of things.
129
295000
3000
我們就可以使用像這樣的東西（主动压制系统）。
05:13
So obviously there's a whole range of different sorts
130
298000
2000
所以，有很多不同種類的非殺傷性武器
05:15
of non-lethal weapons we could give military personnel
131
300000
3000
我們可以提供給軍事人員。
05:18
and there's a whole range of situations
132
303000
2000
另外，在很多種不同的形勢下，
05:20
where they're looking a them and saying, "Hey, these things could be really useful."
133
305000
3000
他們會認為非殺傷性武器會很管用。
05:23
But as I said,
134
308000
2000
但是，我認為
05:25
the military and the police
135
310000
2000
士兵和警察
05:27
are very different.
136
312000
2000
是截然不同的。（笑）
05:29
Yes, you don't have to look very hard at this
137
314000
2000
當然，就算你不那麼仔細的觀察
05:31
to recognize the fact that they might be very different.
138
316000
2000
你也會發現他們可能有所不同。
05:33
In particular,
139
318000
2000
更確切的說，
05:35
the attitude to the use of force
140
320000
2000
他們對使用武力的態度
05:37
and the way they're trained to use force
141
322000
2000
和他們對使用武力所接受的訓練
05:39
is especially different.
142
324000
2000
是非常不一樣的。
05:41
The police --
143
326000
2000
警察們 --
05:43
and knowing because I've actually helped to train police --
144
328000
3000
我了解他們，因為我曾經訓練過他們 --
05:46
police, in particular Western jurisdictions at least,
145
331000
3000
警察，尤其是在西方體制下的警察
05:49
are trained to de-escalate force,
146
334000
3000
所接受的訓練是如何緩解衝突，
05:52
to try and avoid using force
147
337000
2000
他們試圖盡量避免使用武力，
05:54
wherever possible,
148
339000
2000
他們試圖盡量避免使用武力，
05:56
and to use lethal force
149
341000
2000
只有在逼不得已的情況下
05:58
only as an absolute last resort.
150
343000
3000
他們才會使用致命武器。
06:01
Military personnel are being trained for war,
151
346000
3000
士兵是為了戰爭而訓練的，
06:04
so they're trained that, as soon as things go bad,
152
349000
3000
，所以一旦形勢惡化了，他們的第一反應
06:07
their first response is lethal force.
153
352000
3000
就是使用致命武器。
06:11
The moment the fecal matter hits the rotating turbine,
154
356000
4000
在大難臨頭之際
06:15
you can start shooting at people.
155
360000
3000
士兵們就可以開始掃射群眾。
06:18
So their attitudes
156
363000
2000
所以他們對使用武力的態度是十分不同的，
06:20
to the use of lethal force are very different,
157
365000
2000
所以他們對使用武力的態度是十分不同的。
06:22
and I think it's fairly obvious
158
367000
2000
想當然地，
06:24
that their attitude to the use of non-lethal weapons
159
369000
3000
他們對使用非殺傷性武器的態度
06:27
would also be very different from what it is with the police.
160
372000
3000
也會和警察的不同。
06:30
And since we've already had so many problems
161
375000
2000
我認為觀察這類事情
06:32
with police use of non-lethal weapons in various ways,
162
377000
3000
並試圖將它與戰爭聯繫起來會是個不錯的主意。
06:35
I thought it would be a really good idea to look at some of those things
163
380000
3000
因為就連警察在使用非殺傷性武器時
06:38
and try to relate it to the military context.
164
383000
2000
也遇到了種種問題。
06:40
And I was really surprised when I started to do this,
165
385000
2000
我當時覺得很奇怪，當我開始做這件事的時候
06:42
to see that, in fact,
166
387000
2000
我驚奇的發現
06:44
even those people who were advocating the use of non-lethal weapons by the military
167
389000
3000
就連那些支持推廣非殺傷性武器的軍事人員
06:47
hadn't actually done that.
168
392000
2000
也都還沒開始做這件事。
06:49
They generally seem to think,
169
394000
2000
他們通常認為，
06:51
"Well, why would we care what's happened with the police?
170
396000
2000
“我們為什麼要去關注在警察身上發生了什麽？
06:53
We're looking at something different,"
171
398000
2000
警察和士兵可不同。"
06:55
and didn't seem to recognize, in fact,
172
400000
2000
但是他們好像並沒有發現，事實上
06:57
they were looking at pretty much the same stuff.
173
402000
2000
他們（警察和士兵）所遇到的是一類問題。
06:59
So I actually started to investigate some of those issues
174
404000
2000
所以，我就開始研究並調查這類事情。
07:01
and have a look
175
406000
2000
所以，我就開始研究並調查這類事情。
07:03
at the way that police use non-lethal weapons when they're introduced
176
408000
3000
非殺傷性武器剛被採用時，警察是如何使用它的。
07:06
and some of the problems that might arise
177
411000
2000
並且，他們在使用過程中遇到了那些問題。
07:08
out of those sorts of things
178
413000
2000
並且，他們在使用過程中遇到了那些問題。
07:10
when they actually do introduce them.
179
415000
2000
並且，他們在使用過程中遇到了那些問題。
07:12
And of course, being Australian,
180
417000
2000
，理所當然的，作為一位澳大利亞人
07:14
I started looking at stuff in Australia,
181
419000
2000
我對在不同時間（澳）引進非殺傷性武器的事情比較楚，
07:16
knowing, again, from my own experience about various times
182
421000
3000
我對在不同時間（澳）引進非殺傷性武器的事情比較楚，
07:19
when non-lethal weapons have been introduced in Australia.
183
424000
3000
所以我首先調查了澳大利亞
07:22
So one of the things I particularly looked at
184
427000
2000
我當時特別關注的事情之一就是
07:24
was the use of O.C. spray,
185
429000
2000
O.C.噴霧器是如何被警察所使用，
07:26
oleoresin capsicum spray, pepper spray,
186
431000
2000
O.C.噴霧器是如何被警察所使用，
07:28
by Australian police
187
433000
2000
諸如，辣椒红色素喷雾、胡椒喷雾,、。
07:30
and seeing when that had been introduced, what had happened
188
435000
2000
另外還有，當O.C 噴霧器被採用時所發生的事情，
07:32
and those sorts of issues.
189
437000
2000
和諸如此類的事宜。
07:34
And one study that I found,
190
439000
2000
我覺得有這麼 一個在昆士蘭的研究
07:36
a particularly interesting one,
191
441000
2000
我覺得有這麼 一個在昆士蘭的研究
07:38
was actually in Queensland,
192
443000
2000
特別有意思。
07:40
because they had a trial period for the use of pepper spray
193
445000
3000
因為他們在全面推廣胡椒喷雾前
07:43
before they actually introduced it more broadly.
194
448000
3000
有一段適用期。
07:46
And I went and had a look at some of the figures here.
195
451000
3000
然我就看了看數據。
07:49
Now when they introduced O.C. spray in Queensland,
196
454000
2000
當初他們在昆士蘭引進 O.C 噴霧時
07:51
they were really explicit.
197
456000
2000
目標很明確.
07:53
The police minister had a whole heap of public statements made about it.
198
458000
3000
他們並且在這方面做了很多的公共聲明.
07:56
They were saying, "This is explicitly intended
199
461000
2000
他們說,"這是一個很明確的指示
07:58
to give police an option
200
463000
2000
我們想要給警務人在警告和開槍之間
08:00
between shouting and shooting.
201
465000
3000
多增加一種選擇.
08:03
This is something they can use instead of a firearm
202
468000
3000
在這些之前需要開槍的情況中,
08:06
in those situations where they would have previously had to shoot someone."
203
471000
3000
警察可以使用O.C噴霧,而不是槍.
08:09
So I went and looked at all of these police shooting figures.
204
474000
3000
雖然， 像這種警察開槍數據
08:12
And you can't actually find them very easily
205
477000
2000
在澳大利亞各個州很難找到
08:14
for individual Australian states.
206
479000
2000
我還是找到並調查了這些統計數據。
08:16
I could only find these ones.
207
481000
2000
我只找到了這些數據。
08:18
This is from a Australian Institute of Criminology report.
208
483000
2000
這是來自於，澳大利亚犯罪学学院的报告
08:20
As you can see from the fine print, if you can read it at the top:
209
485000
2000
就如你們在這上面所看到的
08:22
"Police shooting deaths" means not just people who have been shot by police,
210
487000
3000
“警察開槍所導致的死亡” 不只包括被警察開搶射死的人
08:25
but people who have shot themselves in the presence of police.
211
490000
4000
還包括了那些在警察面前開搶射殺自己的人。
08:29
But this is the figures across the entire country.
212
494000
2000
這是全國性的數據
08:31
And the red arrow represents the point
213
496000
2000
正如崑山頓，這個紅色箭頭表示的
08:33
where Queensland actually said,
214
498000
2000
正如崑山頓，這個紅色箭頭表示的，
08:35
"Yes, this is where we're going to give all police officers across the entire state
215
500000
3000
“這裡就是那些在全國需要給警務人員配備O.C噴霧的地區”
08:38
access to O.C. spray."
216
503000
2000
“這裡就是那些在全國需要給警務人員配備O.C噴霧的地區”
08:40
So you can see there were six deaths sort of leading up to it
217
505000
3000
所以在這裡你可以看見六個死亡組合，從低到高，
08:43
every year for a number of years.
218
508000
2000
數據包括了數年。
08:45
There was a spike, of course, a few years before,
219
510000
2000
在前幾年，這裡有一個忽漲
08:47
but that wasn't actually Queensland.
220
512000
2000
，但是這裡不是昆士兰州。
08:49
Anyone know where that was? Wasn't Port Arthur, no.
221
514000
3000
誰知道這是哪裡？ 不， 不是 阿瑟港
08:52
Victoria? Yes, correct.
222
517000
2000
維多利亞？ 對了。
08:54
That spike was all Victoria.
223
519000
3000
這裡的猛增多來源於維多利亞。
08:57
So it wasn't that Queensland had a particular problem
224
522000
2000
所以，不是只有昆士兰州有這些問題
08:59
with deaths from police shootings and so on.
225
524000
4000
，問題像警察射殺所導致的死亡之類的。
09:03
So six shootings across the whole country,
226
528000
2000
在全國有六個射殺事件。
09:05
fairly consistently over the years before.
227
530000
2000
在前幾年，這個數字相當的穩定
09:07
So the next two years were the years they studied -- 2001, 2002.
228
532000
3000
所以，當他們引進了O.C 噴霧以後的那兩年裡 ， 2001 和 2002 年裡。
09:10
Anyone want to take a stab at the number of times,
229
535000
3000
所以，當他們引進了O.C 噴霧以後的那兩年裡 ， 2001 和 2002 年裡。
09:13
given how they've introduced this,
230
538000
2000
他們研究了在昆士兰州，警察使用噴霧器的數量。
09:15
the number of times police in Queensland used O.C. spray in that period?
231
540000
3000
有沒有人想要猜一猜這個數字？
09:18
Hundreds? One, three.
232
543000
2000
一百？ 一， 三。
09:20
Thousand is getting better.
233
545000
3000
一千更接近了。
09:25
Explicitly introduced
234
550000
2000
這是一個很明確的意圖，
09:27
as an alternative to the use of lethal force --
235
552000
2000
除了使用致命武器外另外一個選擇 --
09:29
an alternative between shouting and shooting.
236
554000
3000
在警告和開槍之間,多增加一種選擇.
09:32
I'm going to go out on a limb here
237
557000
2000
我現在想說得再明白點（爬高枝）
09:34
and say that if Queensland police didn't have O.C. spray,
238
559000
3000
如果昆士兰州的警察沒有使用噴霧劑的話，
09:37
they wouldn't have shot 2,226 people
239
562000
3000
他們不可能在這兩年裡，射殺了2226 個人。
09:40
in those two years.
240
565000
3000
他們不可能在這兩年裡，射殺了2226 個人。
09:43
In fact, if you have a look
241
568000
2000
事實上，如果你看一看
09:45
at the studies that they were looking at,
242
570000
2000
他們調查結果。他們所收集的資料和審查，
09:47
the material they were collecting and examining,
243
572000
3000
他們調查結果。他們所收集的資料和審查，
09:50
you can see the suspects were only armed
244
575000
3000
你會發現在警察使用噴霧器的事件中，
09:53
in about 15 percent of cases
245
578000
2000
只有百分之15是的嫌疑犯
09:55
where O.C. spray was used.
246
580000
2000
攜帶了武器。
09:57
It was routinely being used in this period,
247
582000
3000
在那個時期，O.C噴霧器是被常規的使用的，
10:00
and, of course, still is routinely used --
248
585000
2000
當然，現在也是 --
10:02
because there were no complaints about it,
249
587000
2000
這是應為，沒有對這類事件有任何的投訴
10:04
not within the context of this study anyway --
250
589000
3000
至少在這個調查中沒有 --
10:07
it was routinely being used
251
592000
2000
噴霧器在面對這類人被常規的使用，
10:09
to deal with people who were violent,
252
594000
2000
比如說暴力的人，
10:11
who were potentially violent,
253
596000
2000
或者具有暴力傾向的人
10:13
and also quite frequently used
254
598000
2000
另外，噴霧器也會被拿來
10:15
to deal with people who were simply
255
600000
2000
對付那些只是不喜歡
10:17
passively non-compliant.
256
602000
4000
順從警察命令的那些人。
10:21
This person is not doing anything violent,
257
606000
2000
這些人沒有做任何具有暴力傾向的事，
10:23
but they just won't do what we want them to.
258
608000
2000
但是，他們只是不想去做別人讓他們做的事，
10:25
They're not obeying the directions that we're giving them,
259
610000
2000
他們沒有服從警察的命令，
10:27
so we'll give them a shot of the O.C. spray.
260
612000
2000
所以警察就對他們使用了O.C噴霧器。
10:29
That'll speed them up. Everything will work out better that way.
261
614000
4000
這樣可以迅速解決問題。
10:33
This was something explicitly introduced
262
618000
2000
這就是他們所說的，“在使用手槍以外，
10:35
to be an alternative to firearms,
263
620000
2000
有另外一個選擇，
10:37
but it's being routinely used
264
622000
2000
但是，O.C 噴霧器在很多的領域中和其他的問題中
10:39
to deal with a whole range
265
624000
2000
但是，O.C 噴霧器在很多的領域中和其他的問題中
10:41
of other sorts of problems.
266
626000
2000
被過度使用了。
10:43
Now one of the particular issues that comes up
267
628000
2000
現在，我們來說說，軍事人員在使用非殺傷性武器所遇到的問題
10:45
with military use of non-lethal weapons --
268
630000
3000
現在，我們來說說，軍事人員在使用非殺傷性武器所遇到的問題
10:48
and people when they're actually saying, "Well hey, there might be some problems" --
269
633000
3000
人們說， “可能會有一些問題”
10:51
there's a couple of particular problems that get focused on.
270
636000
3000
其中有些問題被特別關注了。
10:54
One of those problems
271
639000
2000
其中一個問題就是
10:56
is that non-lethal weapons may be used indiscriminately.
272
641000
3000
非殺傷性武器被不加以區分地使用了。
10:59
One of the fundamental principles of military use of force
273
644000
3000
軍事人員在使用武力時所要依循的原則之一
11:02
is that you have to be discriminate.
274
647000
2000
就是要懂得辨別。
11:04
You have to be careful about who you're shooting at.
275
649000
3000
當你要開槍時要非常小心
11:07
So one of the problems that's been suggested with non-lethal weapons
276
652000
3000
所以， 由於， 你不需要太擔心使用非殺傷性武器
11:10
is that they might be used indiscriminately --
277
655000
2000
其中一個使用非殺傷性武器的問題
11:12
that you use them against a whole range of people
278
657000
2000
就是它們被隨意地使用在一批人身上。
11:14
because you don't have to worry so much anymore.
279
659000
3000
就是它們被隨意地使用在一批人身上。
11:17
And in fact, one particular instance
280
662000
2000
事實上，我覺得有一個例子，
11:19
where I think that actually happens where you can look at it
281
664000
2000
一個已經發生了的例子可以說明問題。
11:21
was the Dubrovka Theatre siege in Moscow in 2002,
282
666000
3000
那就是在2002年，俄羅斯大劇院人質事件。
11:24
which probably a lot of you, unlike most of my students at ADFA,
283
669000
2000
不像我的一些年輕的學生們，
11:26
are actually old enough to remember.
284
671000
2000
大部分在座的老一輩應該還能記得。
11:28
So Chechens had come in and taken control of the theater.
285
673000
3000
一些車臣份子闖進了劇院，並且控制了全場。
11:31
They were holding something like 700 people hostage.
286
676000
3000
他們挾持了將近700多名人質。
11:34
They'd released a bunch of people,
287
679000
2000
雖然他們釋放了其中一些人，
11:36
but they still had about 700 people hostage.
288
681000
3000
但是他們還是有將近700名人質。
11:39
And the Russian special military police,
289
684000
3000
然後，俄羅斯特總部隊，
11:42
special forces, Spetsnaz,
290
687000
2000
雪域特戰隊，
11:44
came in and actually stormed the theater.
291
689000
2000
偷襲並橫掃了劇院。
11:46
And the way they did it was to pump the whole thing full of anesthetic gas.
292
691000
3000
他們先是將整個劇院灌入麻醉氣體。
11:49
And it turned out
293
694000
2000
結果發現
11:51
that lots of these hostages actually died
294
696000
3000
很多人質由於吸入了這些氣體
11:54
as a result of inhaling the gas.
295
699000
3000
而死亡。
11:57
It was used indiscriminately.
296
702000
2000
這就是一個任意濫用武器的例子。
11:59
They pumped the whole theater full of the gas.
297
704000
3000
不難想像，有人會因為這而喪身。
12:02
And it's no surprise that people died,
298
707000
2000
他們把這個劇院灌滿了麻醉氣體。
12:04
because you don't know how much of this gas
299
709000
2000
你不知道每個人會吸入多少氣體，
12:06
each person is going to inhale,
300
711000
2000
你不知道每個人會吸入多少氣體，
12:08
what position they're going to fall in
301
713000
2000
當他們失去意識時，會以什麼姿勢倒地，等等。
12:10
when they become unconscious and so on.
302
715000
2000
當他們失去意識時，會以什麼姿勢倒地，等等。
12:12
There were, in fact, only a couple of people who got shot
303
717000
3000
事實上，整個事件只有兩個人被開槍射擊
12:15
in this episode.
304
720000
2000
事實上，整個事件只有兩個人被開槍射擊
12:17
So when they had a look at it afterward,
305
722000
2000
所以，當他們回顧發現，
12:19
there were only a couple of people
306
724000
2000
只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。
12:21
who'd apparently been shot by the hostage takers
307
726000
2000
只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。
12:23
or shot by the police forces
308
728000
2000
只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。
12:25
coming in and trying to deal with the situation.
309
730000
2000
只有兩個人是明顯地被挾持者或特總部隊開槍射擊而亡。
12:27
Virtually everybody that got killed
310
732000
2000
幾乎所有喪生的人都是由於
12:29
got killed from inhaling the gas.
311
734000
2000
吸入了這種麻醉氣體。
12:31
The final toll of hostages
312
736000
2000
最後喪生的人質總數
12:33
is a little unclear,
313
738000
2000
還是有點不清楚
12:35
but it's certainly a few more than that,
314
740000
2000
但肯定是比當場死亡人數要多，
12:37
because there were other people who died over the next few days.
315
742000
2000
因為有些人在過後幾天身亡。
12:39
So this was one particular problem they talked about,
316
744000
2000
這就是其中一個我們所說的
12:41
that it might be used indiscriminately.
317
746000
2000
濫用非致命性武器的問題。
12:43
Second problem that people sometimes talk about
318
748000
2000
第二個人們時常談到的在使用非殺傷性武器時的問題，
12:45
with military use of non-lethal weapons,
319
750000
2000
第二個人們時常談到的在使用非殺傷性武器時的問題，
12:47
and it's actually the reason why in the chemical weapons convention,
320
752000
3000
這也是化學武器公約裡所談到的，
12:50
it's very clear that you can't use riot control agents
321
755000
2000
很明顯的，不應把軍用化學武器
12:52
as a weapon of warfare,
322
757000
2000
用於戰爭
12:54
the problem with that is that it's seen that sometimes
323
759000
3000
這個問題就在於
12:57
non-lethal weapons might actually be used, not as an alternative to lethal force,
324
762000
3000
這些非殺傷性武器不是用於替代殺傷性武器的
13:00
but as a lethal force multiplier --
325
765000
3000
而是用來輔助殺傷性武器的 --
13:03
that you use non-lethal weapons first
326
768000
2000
你可以先使用非殺傷性武器
13:05
so that your lethal weapons will actually be more effective.
327
770000
3000
然後你再使用殺傷性武器時就會變得更有效。
13:08
The people you're going to be shooting at
328
773000
2000
被你射擊的人將無法躲開。
13:10
aren't going to be able to get out of the way.
329
775000
2000
被你射擊的人將無法躲開。
13:12
They're not going to be aware of what's happening and you can kill them better.
330
777000
3000
你可以更輕鬆的殺死他們，因為他們不知道發生了什麼。
13:15
And in fact, that's exactly what happened here.
331
780000
3000
然而事實上，那正是所發生的事
13:18
The hostage takers who had been rendered unconscious by the gas
332
783000
3000
那些由於吸入氣體而昏迷的挾持人質者
13:21
were not taken into custody,
333
786000
2000
沒有被逮捕，
13:23
they were simply shot in the head.
334
788000
3000
而是被直接爆了頭。
13:26
So this non-lethal weapon
335
791000
2000
所以，在這場事件中，
13:28
was being used, in fact, in this case
336
793000
2000
非殺傷性武器被用來
13:30
as a lethal force multiplier
337
795000
3000
輔助殺傷性武器，
13:33
to make killing more effective
338
798000
2000
從而可以更有效率的殺戮。
13:35
in this particular situation.
339
800000
3000
從而可以更有效率的殺戮。
13:38
Another problem that I just want to quickly mention
340
803000
2000
我還想簡單的提一下另一個問題，
13:40
is that there's a whole heap of problems
341
805000
2000
那就是，人所接受的非殺傷性武器的培訓方法
13:42
with the way that people actually get taught
342
807000
2000
那就是，人所接受的非殺傷性武器的培訓方法
13:44
to use non-lethal weapons
343
809000
2000
那就是，人所接受的非殺傷性武器的培訓方法
13:46
and get trained about them and then get tested and so on.
344
811000
2000
有堆積如山的問題。
13:48
Because they get tested in nice, safe environments.
345
813000
3000
因為他們是在一個良好及安全的環境下接受訓練
13:51
And people get taught to use them in nice, safe environments
346
816000
3000
同樣，他們也是在這樣的環境下接受考核。
13:54
like this, where you can see exactly what's going on.
347
819000
3000
就像這裡，你可以確切地看到發生了什麼。
13:57
The person who's spraying the O.C. spray is wearing a rubber glove
348
822000
3000
這裡在使用O.C噴霧器的人戴着塑膠手套
14:00
to make sure they don't get contaminated and so on.
349
825000
2000
以確保他們不會被污染
14:02
But they don't ever get used like that.
350
827000
2000
但是在現實中，這些殺傷性武器
14:04
They get used out in the real world,
351
829000
2000
不是被這樣使用的，
14:06
like in Texas, like this.
352
831000
4000
就像在德克萨斯州，“警察對老奶奶使用電擊槍”
14:10
I confess, this particular case
353
835000
3000
我承認， 這一事件
14:13
was actually one that piqued my interest in this.
354
838000
2000
激起了我的興趣。
14:15
It happened while I was working as a research fellow at the U.S. Naval Academy.
355
840000
3000
這件事情發生的時候，我是美國海軍學院的一名研究員
14:18
And news reports started coming up about this situation
356
843000
3000
那時，新聞開始播報這件事
14:21
where this woman was arguing with the police officer.
357
846000
3000
一個老奶奶和警務人員發生了爭執
14:24
She wasn't violent.
358
849000
2000
她並不暴力
14:26
In fact, he was probably six inches taller than me,
359
851000
2000
這個警察比我高六英寸
14:28
and she was about this tall.
360
853000
3000
，而老奶奶有差不多怎麼高
14:31
And eventually she said to him
361
856000
2000
最後她對警察說
14:33
"Well I'm going to get back in my car."
362
858000
2000
“我現在要回到我的車上了。”
14:35
And he says, "If you get back into your car, I'm going to tase you."
363
860000
2000
然後他說，“如果你回到你的車上，我就會使用電擊槍."
14:37
And she says, "Oh, go ahead. Tase me." And so he does.
364
862000
3000
然後她說， “好啊，來呀，電我啊。” 然後他就照做了。
14:40
And it's all captured by the video camera
365
865000
2000
這一切被攝像頭記錄了下來。
14:42
running in the front of the police car.
366
867000
4000
這一切被攝像頭記錄了下來。
14:46
So she's 72,
367
871000
3000
所以，她是72歲
14:49
and it's seen that this is the most appropriate way of dealing with her.
368
874000
4000
這看來是對付她最適當的方法。
14:53
And other examples of the same sorts of things
369
878000
2000
還有其它類似的例子，
14:55
with other people where you think
370
880000
2000
這些例子讓你質疑，
14:57
where you think, "Is this really an appropriate way to use non-lethal weapons?"
371
882000
3000
“這真的是使用非殺傷武器最適合的方法嗎？”
15:00
"Police chief fires Taser into 14 year-old girl's head."
372
885000
2000
“警察局長朝14歲女孩的頭部使用電擊槍。”
15:02
"She was running away. What else was I suppose to do?"
373
887000
3000
“她逃跑了，我別無選擇”
15:05
(Laughter)
374
890000
3000
（笑聲）
15:08
Or Florida:
375
893000
2000
或者， 佛罗里达
15:10
"Police Taser six year-old boy at elementary school."
376
895000
3000
“警察在小學對六歲男孩使用電擊槍。”
15:13
And they clearly learned a lot from it
377
898000
2000
他們肯定從中吸取了教訓。
15:15
because in the same district,
378
900000
2000
因為這兩件事發生在同一個社區
15:17
"Police review policy after children shocked:
379
902000
2000
“孩子被電擊，警察重新修訂政策；
15:19
2nd child shocked by Taser stun gun within weeks."
380
904000
3000
在一星期內，兩名孩童被電擊槍擊中。”
15:22
Same police district.
381
907000
2000
又同一個社區,
15:24
Another child within weeks of Tasering the six year-old boy.
382
909000
3000
在六歲男童被電擊後的幾個禮拜裡，有另一個孩童被電了。
15:27
Just in case you think
383
912000
2000
你可能覺得
15:29
it's only going to happen in the United States,
384
914000
2000
這事只會發生在美國
15:31
it happened in Canada as well.
385
916000
2000
但是，這種事也在加拿大發生了。
15:33
And a colleague of mine
386
918000
2000
我的一個同事從倫敦發給了我這個， “被捕82歲男人被電擊”
15:35
sent me this one from London.
387
920000
2000
我的一個同事從倫敦發給了我這個， “被捕82歲男人被電擊”
15:37
But my personal favorite of these ones, I have to confess,
388
922000
3000
但是我必須承認，我最喜歡的還是
15:40
does actually come from the United States:
389
925000
3000
來自於美國的；
15:43
"Officers Taser 86 year-old disabled woman in her bed."
390
928000
3000
“警員電擊了一個躺在床上的86歲殘疾女性。”
15:46
I checked the reports on this one.
391
931000
4000
我查了查關於這事件的報導。
15:50
I looked at it. I was really surprised.
392
935000
3000
我看了以後大吃一驚。
15:53
Apparently she took up a more threatening position in her bed.
393
938000
3000
很明顯的，她躺在床上時更具有危險性。
15:56
(Laughter)
394
941000
2000
（笑聲）
15:58
I kid you not. That's exactly what it said.
395
943000
2000
我沒開玩笑，這真的
16:00
"She took up a more threatening position in her bed."
396
945000
3000
“她躺在床上時更具有危險性。”
16:03
Okay.
397
948000
2000
好的。
16:05
But I'd remind you what I'm talking about,
398
950000
2000
但是我想要提醒你我今天的主題，
16:07
I'm talking about military uses of non-lethal weapons.
399
952000
2000
我想要說的是軍事人員（士兵）在使用非殺傷性武器時的問題
16:09
So why is this relevant?
400
954000
2000
所以，這有什麼關聯嗎？
16:11
Because police are actually more restrained in the use of force
401
956000
2000
因為警察在使用武力時比士兵受到更多的約束，
16:13
than the military are.
402
958000
2000
因為警察在使用武力時比士兵受到更多的約束，
16:15
They're trained to be more restrained in the use of force than the military are.
403
960000
3000
所以，在訓練時，他們也被教導要更謹慎地使用武力。
16:18
They're trained to think more, to try and de-escalate.
404
963000
3000
他們會顧慮的跟多，盡量大事化小，小事化了。
16:21
So if you have these problems with police officers with non-lethal weapons,
405
966000
3000
如果你覺得就連警察在使用非殺傷性武器時都會遇到問題，
16:24
what on earth would make you think
406
969000
2000
那麼，到底什麼會讓你覺得
16:26
it's going to be better with military personnel?
407
971000
3000
軍事人員會被警察做的要好呢？
16:30
The last thing that I would just like to say,
408
975000
3000
最後我想說的是，
16:33
when I'm talking to the police
409
978000
2000
當我和警員談起什麼是完美的非殺傷性武器時
16:35
about what a perfect non-lethal weapon would look like,
410
980000
2000
當我和警員談起什麼是完美的非殺傷性武器時
16:37
they almost inevitably say the same thing.
411
982000
2000
他們必然會說同樣的話：
16:39
They say, "Well, it's got to be something that's nasty enough
412
984000
3000
“嗯，它必需要是足夠噁心，使人們不想被它所傷。“
16:42
that people don't want to be hit with this weapon.
413
987000
2000
“嗯，它必需要是足夠噁心，使人們不想被它所傷。"
16:44
So if you threaten to use it,
414
989000
2000
"當你威脅別人說要用它時，
16:46
people are going to comply with it,
415
991000
3000
人人往往會投降。”
16:49
but it's also going to be something
416
994000
2000
“但它還不能留下任何後遺症。”
16:51
that doesn't leave any lasting effects."
417
996000
4000
“但它還不能留下任何後遺症。”
16:55
In other words, your perfect non-lethal weapon
418
1000000
3000
換句話說，完美的非殺傷性武器就是非常適用於虐待人的。
16:58
is something that's perfect for abuse.
419
1003000
2000
換句話說，完美的非殺傷性武器就是非常適用於虐待人的。
17:00
What would these guys have done
420
1005000
2000
想像一下，當這些人擁有點擊槍或者一個可以操控的，便携版的主动拒止系统
17:02
if they'd had access to Tasers
421
1007000
2000
當這些人擁有電擊槍或者一個便携版的主动拒止系统
17:04
or to a manned, portable version
422
1009000
2000
（主动拒止系统-能讓你使用毫米波電磁的非殺傷技術，而你卻不需要擔心後果）
17:06
of the Active Denial System --
423
1011000
2000
（主动拒止系统-能讓你使用毫米波電磁的非殺傷技術，而你卻不需要擔心後果）
17:08
a small heat ray that you can use on people
424
1013000
3000
（主动拒止系统-能讓你使用毫米波電磁的非殺傷技術，而你卻不需要擔心後果）
17:11
and not worry about it.
425
1016000
2000
他們會做出什麼呢。
17:13
So I think, yes, there may be ways
426
1018000
3000
所以我覺得，非殺傷性武器是在一些情況下會有很大效果，
17:16
that non-lethal weapons are going to be great in these situations,
427
1021000
2000
所以我覺得，非殺傷性武器是在一些情況下會有很大效果，
17:18
but there's also a whole heap of problems
428
1023000
2000
但不能不考慮它所帶來的堆積如山的問題。
17:20
that need to be considered as well.
429
1025000
2000
但不能不考慮它所帶來的堆積如山的問題。
17:22
Thanks very much.
430
1027000
2000
非常感謝。
17:24
(Applause)
431
1029000
2000
(鼓掌)
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Stephen Coleman - EthicistStephen Coleman studies applied ethics, particularly the ethics of military and police force, and their application to human rights.
Why you should listen
Dr. Stephen Coleman is Senior Lecturer in Ethics and Leadership and Vincent Fairfax Foundation Fellow in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, UNSW@ADFA.
Coleman works in a diverse range of areas in applied ethics, including military ethics, police ethics, medical ethics, and the practical applications of human rights. He has published and presented in various forms in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Hong Kong. He recently spent an academic year as the Resident Fellow at the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at the United States Naval Academy, where he was part of a large research project examining the ethical implications of various new and developing military technologies. This project helped to brief the Department of Defense, the US Congress and the White House on these issues.
He can also make balloon and origami animals, juggle, breathe fire and ride a unicycle, though not all at the same time.
Stephen Coleman | Speaker | TED.com