Page 92 - 111111

¥ÿ≈æ“À

system based on risk assessment. The visit led to development of a parallel

pilot for risk assessment-based bail decision-making. This pilot was planned
and implemented by a different team of judges and court officers, and

started in early 2016 in 10 participating courts. Predictably, the EM and

assessment-based pilots ran into turf issues. When the EM team started
planning its project, the risk assessment team had already selected ten courts

for its pilot, and the assessment group proposed that EM be piloted only in

the ten participating courts. The assessment team argued that EM was

neither appropriate nor necessary for offenders who have a minimal risk of

flight or reoffending. The EM bail team disagreed; they interpreted the new
enabling legislation as a mandate to reduce the inequity of the bail system,

not to end it altogether, and that any offender who previously would have

been subjected to a cash or surety bond should be offered the EM option.
At first, to avoid conflict between the two pilots, executives in the Office of

the Judiciary allowed the projects to be developed independently. Eventually,

however, it was decided that the two projects should be merged, so as not

to create confusion among participating courts. The 23 courts recruited to

join the initial EM bail project, then, would also include the 10 courts of the
risk assessment pilot.

Contracts were concluded in mid-2017 and the first were delivered to

the Office of the Judiciary in January 2018. The first EM çbondsé were issued

in March 2018. The program would run for one year, and then be evaluated.
While waiting for the delivery of devices, an Electronic Monitoring Centre

(EMC) was established and staff trained and stationed in the center. The legal

team in the Office of the Judiciary, of which I was a member, prepared a

manual for judges and court officials in operating the system. Although the

情¿“§¡ - ‘ßÀ“§¡ ÚıˆÚ 81 81
81
81 81