If you actually believe in demons and possession, then absolutely no text on the planet advocates such violence. One of the best-known exorcists - the late Malachi Martin - who was interviewed on Art Bell's show many times described the process clearly: A bunch of people get into a room together on the mutual understanding that nobody leaves until whatever conspiracy of silence exists has been broken, and that the entire process is nothing more than a friendly conversation.
He, the late Dr. Scott Peck, and the Vatican all seem pretty much agreed on four other things: that there be provable and verifiable problems that need attending, that thorough investigation yields absolutely no evidence of a psychological, neurological or other medical cause, that one or more side-effects defy any rational explanation, and lastly that the person knowingly and deliberately choose the path of exorcism, having exhausted all other options.
(Even if we think all the above people are nuts, it is important to understand that they believed in what they were doing. I'll explain later why that's such a critical point.)
The Roman Ritual (which is the only method the Vatican authorizes) is said to take about half an hour and largely involves prayers in Latin and the sprinkling of Holy Water. Unless the person is hydrophobic, the total response should be just about nil.
If all the quacks and lunatics in the world want to go around believing in demons and devils, provided they do so according to the above diagnostic criteria (abiding by results they don't like) and one of the two above methods, I honestly can't see it as being particularly harmful to anyone.
But of course they won't. Why? Because they may be quacks and lunatics, but they're not THAT kind of quack or lunatic, or they'd be following the documented and approved standards. Lunatics may seem to make no sense, but internally they make perfect sense. So when you see something that fails to make sense by what they claim is their internal logic, you know that the problem lies not in their minds but in their claims.
This person did not actually believe what he said he believed. Therefore, this was not about removing demons, because he clearly did not approach things in any of the possible ways an actual belief in the subject would have required.
What else could it have been? Easy. A lot of the religions in that geographic area hold exorcists in very high esteem. It's one of the most glorified roles in a lot of these churches. It seems obvious to me that this had far less to do with exorcism as it had to do with a pathetic need to be worshiped and adored by others in his church. No different from trying to get rapid promotions by kissing the boss' boots. You don't have to believe in such conduct, you only have to crave the reward you think you'll get.
Do I believe in exorcism? No, but provided it is rigorously regulated and Constitutional protections are clearly and definitively withdrawn from highly hazardous and abusive practices, I don't see any more harm in it than fortune tellers and weather forecasters.
"But this country was founded on religious freedom!" Well, no it wasn't, but I won't get into that here.