{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024615384615384615, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0041025641025641026, 'mean_word_length': 4.915151515151515, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Between bail and sentence: the conflation of dispositional options

In 2002, the New South Wales Parliament enacted the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Criminal Justice Interventions) Act. This Act introduced a new species of dispositional outcome, an 'intervention program order' into the range of options available to a court after an arrest (but pre-trial) or after a finding of guilt or a conviction. On the face of it, this is a departure from the Carr Labor government's more aggressive 'law and order' policies, and its purpose is laudable: to reduce the likelihood of the person committing further offences by inviting or requiring him or her to participate in a rehabilitation, treatment or restorative justice program. However, the means by which it does so, an order which can be used as a condition of bail or as a deferred sentence or as a condition in a good behaviour bond, raises significant issues with respect to the dividing line between bail and sentencing.