ECD Report 1Layout 1.qxd by WoodyWoodcock


									Ombudsman Saskatchewan                                                              My Brother’s Keeper

E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
                                                      On November 26, 2007 the Ombudsman noti-
    “There are major differences be-                  fied the Ministry of his intention to initiate a re-
   tween the cultures [of policing and                view.
  corrections]. One’s a catcher and the
            other’s a keeper.”
                - Allen Beck, Jail Consultant         Purpose
        Los Angeles Times, February 15, 2008          The Ombudsman’s review followed the use of
                                                      an ECD on a correctional centre inmate. After
                                                      examining the information provided to us, we
                                                      concurred with the overall findings of the Min-
Section 1: Introduction,                              istry’s internal review of the incident. Specifi-
Purpose, and Methodology                              cally, we agreed that though the ECD was
                                                      “mistakenly authorized for deployment and
Introduction                                          not approved for use” at the time of the inci-
In 2006, the then Department of Corrections           dent it was, given the circumstances of the in-
and Public Safety embarked on a process to            cident, properly used as per Divisional Policy.
implement Electronic Control Device (ECD)             In other words, the use of the ECD was per-
technology for its three adult male correc-           haps the correct decision made at the wrong
tional centres in Prince Albert, Regina, and          time.
Saskatoon. The policy which governed ECD
use was to take effect in October 2007. The           The Ombudsman’s review focused primarily
actual use of the device, however, would not          on the broader questions and issues related to
be authorized until all required staff were fully     the introduction of ECD technology in provin-
trained and the centres had received ap-              cial correctional facilities in Saskatchewan.
proval of their local standing orders from the        The Ombudsman is cognizant that our role is
Adult Corrections Division. Full operational im-      not to manage the security operations of the
plementation of ECD technology was antici-            correctional centres, and therefore this report
pated in January 2008.                                will not make a recommendation on whether
                                                      or not ECD technology should be introduced.
On September 4, 2007, an inmate was shot
with an ECD at a provincial correctional cen-         This review will also not publicly report on the
tre during a cell extraction. The Department          September 4th incident. Our decision not to
immediately began an internal review and              do so is based partially on the preference of
found that the use of the technology, though          the affected inmate and on the Ombuds-
properly deployed, was not authorized. On or          man’s opinion that publicly reporting on that
about September 27, 2007, the Department              incident would potentially identify the inmate.
notified the Ombudsman of the September
4th incident. Departmental staff explained
that they were conducting an internal review,         Methodology
a copy of which they agreed to provide to             The methods used to carry out the Ombuds-
the Ombudsman. On November 16, 2007, the              man’s review included:
Department provided the Ombudsman with                   Literature and legislative reviews.
their internal review.                                   Review of Ministry documents, training
                                                         material and institutional files.
On November 21, 2007, the Department (now
known as the Ministry of Corrections, Public             Cross-jurisdictional reviews of correctional
Safety and Policing), suspended “the imple-              policies respecting the use of force.
mentation of Tasers” in Adult Correctional               Consultation with an external use-of-force
Centres.                                                 expert and ECD certified trainer.
                                                         27 key person interviews.

    My Brother’s Keeper                                                      Ombudsman Saskatchewan

    E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
    Section 2: The Theory and the                            Human subject studies have been non-
    Technology                                               representative and primarily based on the
                                                             experience of healthy law enforcement
    ECDs are classified as non-lethal devices that           officers who were exposed to an ECD
    “produce and deliver a non-lethal electric               shock during training.
    shock to a target resulting in pain, involuntary         Adequate predictive models have not
    muscle contraction, and incapacitation, de-              been fully developed and those now used
    pending on the device and its application”               have been based on singular factors such
    (NATO Research and Technology Organiza-                  as number of deaths or injuries per number
    tion). Though other ECDs exist, the technol-             of times an ECD was used.
    ogy has been typically interpreted by the                Operational comparisons and reviews
    general public as being or meaning a TASER®.             bring in an element of subjectivity through
    The TASER is an ECD, physically resembling a             the use of testimonials or other anecdotal
    gun and is used by policing and corrections              information.
    agencies throughout North America. The
                                                             The majority of studies focus on physical
    TASER X26 model is the ECD purchased for use
                                                             injury and do not consider the acute and
    by the Ministry of Corrections, Public Safety
                                                             long-term psychological impact or injury,
    and Policing. The X26 model can shoot pro-
                                                             or non-injurious exposure following an ECD
    jectiles and be used as stun gun.
    Non-lethal weapons have been used for
                                                          Despite these concerns, based on the infor-
    decades by the military, police, and correc-
                                                          mation reviewed for this report there appears
    tions. The rationale behind using non-lethal
                                                          to be a general consensus that an ECD, when
    weapons was to provide an “alternative to
                                                          properly introduced, monitored, and de-
    lethal force.” The primary intent of non-lethal
    weapons in correctional facilities is to reduce
    or avoid incidences of significant injury, to pro-
    vide a tool to assist with the control and com-          Provides an alternative to lethal force.
    pliance of a sometimes volatile population or            Can immediately incapacitate an individ-
    individual, and to address the safety needs of           ual thereby reducing the risk of significant
    individual corrections workers and prisoners.            injuries to the operator, the target subject,
                                                             and bystanders.
    There has been great controversy about ECD
                                                             Poses few health risks (based on single and
    technology in law enforcement across
                                                             or limited applications of no more than 5
    Canada. While much has been written about
                                                             seconds in duration) in healthy non-preg-
    the risks and benefits of ECDs, there has also
                                                             nant adults.
    been criticism directed at the reviews, re-
    search reports, and other evaluative informa-            Is a “discriminate” weapon that can be
    tion concerning ECDs. These concerns                     used in close or contained areas.
    include:                                                 Can act as a deterrent.
                                                             In acting as a deterrent, can avoid unnec-
       The lack of rigorous and independent sci-             essary injuries to the operator, to the target
       entific/medical research about the effects            subject and to bystanders.
       of ECDs on humans.
       The fact that much of the research con-
       ducted has been (for medical-ethical pur-
       poses) on animals whose results cannot be
       reliably extrapolated to humans.

Ombudsman Saskatchewan                                                            My Brother’s Keeper

E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
Conversely, there are also a number of un-           Section 3 ECD Technology in a
known factors and cautions associated with           Correctional Centre
ECD use:
                                                     Very little has been published about the use of
   There is lack of empirical data regarding         ECDs in correctional centres, particularly in
   the “type and level” of pain associated           Canada. The literature focuses almost exclu-
   with ECDs.                                        sively on the use of ECDs in a police setting.
   The acute and long-term psychological             While this literature contains useful information,
   impacts following an ECD deployment has           the circumstances police officers in the com-
   not been adequately studied.                      munity may face are different than the cir-
                                                     cumstances corrections workers face in a
   Not enough is known about the risks of
                                                     correctional centre. There are two important
   ECD exposure to vulnerable groups – chil-
                                                     differences; first, corrections workers generally
   dren, the elderly, pregnant women, the
                                                     know the inmates and their history, and sec-
   obese, individuals with cardiovascular or
                                                     ond, given that they know the inmate popula-
   cardio-respiratory disease, those under the
                                                     tion, corrections workers often have more
   influence of drugs, the mentally ill, or indi-
                                                     options for control than police (U.S. Depart-
   viduals exhibiting symptoms of excited
                                                     ment of Justice, 2006). Corrections workers
                                                     need to maintain a constant awareness of in-
   The cumulative effects of other non-lethal        mates’ circumstances so they can proactively
   interventions (physical restraint, pepper         address concerns before situations escalate.
   spray) in combination with ECD in relation        However, there are times when situations do
   to sudden in-custody deaths has yet to be         escalate and the use of force is required.
   adequately explored or understood.
   Concerns have also been raised that the           We asked Ministry and correctional staff and
   ECD is inherently open to abuse if its use is     union representatives: “Does the environment
   not adequately monitored and restricted.          of provincial correctional centres today war-
                                                     rant the introduction of ECDs?” Resoundingly,
As with any other non-lethal technology, the         we were told yes. When asked to explain
introduction of ECD technology into a setting        what environmental factors were present that
such as a provincial correctional centre is a        caused them to feel ECDs were required, re-
complex issue. The decision to introduce ECD         spondents described three primary factors:
technology into any setting or organization
needs to be “balanced against the alterna-           1. High levels of violence among inmates, at
tives and their associated risks” (Broadstock,          times directed towards staff.
2002). The Ministry of Corrections, Public Safety
                                                     2. The presence and influence of gangs in
and Policing must balance the effectiveness
                                                        the inmate population.
of ECD technology against not only known
(albeit relatively rare) serious adverse effects,    3. The high number of remand inmates.
but also the unknown effects that may arise
from ECD use in provincial correctional cen-         These three factors were suggested as in-
tres housing primarily vulnerable populations.       creasing the levels of volatility within the cor-
                                                     rectional centres. Many of those we
                                                     interviewed believed that ECD technology
                                                     was necessary to address the increased levels
                                                     of volatility in the correctional centres. Though
                                                     not disputing these claims, the Ombudsman
                                                     found, as in 2002, that the Ministry lacks a reli-
                                                     able “reporting system … to objectively deter-
                                                     mine the volatility of its corrections institutions”

    My Brother’s Keeper                                                      Ombudsman Saskatchewan

    E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
    (2002, p. 30) and more specifically, whether          Section 4: The History and Process of
    the presence of gangs and the high number             Introducing ECD Technology into the
    of remand inmates corresponds with actual
    increases in levels of violence.
                                                          Correctional Centres

    In his 2007 Annual Report, the Ombudsman              The Ombudsman accepts that the authoriza-
    stated that it was his belief that “providing the     tion process used in the Ministry to approve
    resources necessary to ensure that appropri-          the ECD technology was one that fell within
    ate programming is available to those serving         the Ministry’s legislative mandate, authority,
    time on remand is a wise investment that will         and responsibilities. The Ombudsman, how-
    provide significant long-term benefits” (Om-          ever, questions if the subsequent policy devel-
    budsman Saskatchewan, p. 7).                          opment process, as described to us, was
                                                          robust enough to support the introduction of a
    Many of the people we interviewed believed            non-lethal weapon as potentially controversial
    ECD technology was generally safe to use in           as the ECD into the correctional system hous-
    the inmate population and, in appropriate             ing, primarily, vulnerable populations.
    circumstances, would result in lower incidents
    of adverse effects as compared to other
    security equipment (batons and pepper                 The Missing Steps
    spray). The Ombudsman does not dispute this           The deficits, as identified by the Ombudsman
    belief. However, it must be recognized that           within the Ministry policy development
    individuals within the adult male inmate              process, included:
    population may possess significantly higher
    rates of health risk factors that increase their         Identification of the issue – The basic
    level of vulnerability and that, “there appears          assumption that the Ministry operated
    to be a general lack of research to examine              under to support the introduction of ECD
    the negative effects CEWs may have on                    technology was the perceived increased
    vulnerable populations” (Commissioner for                levels of violence within the correctional
    Public Complaints against the RCMP, 2007).               centres. This assumption appears to have
    (Note: ECDs may also be referred to as                   been primarily based on anecdotal infor-
    conducted energy devices - CEDs, electro-                mation. The Ministry did not support their
    muscular incapacitation devices - EMDs, or               identification of the issue with additional
    conducted energy weapons - CEWs.)                        evidence-based quantitative data, such
                                                             as an analysis of the system’s use-of-force
    Whether remanded or sentenced, the individ-              incidents, or statistical information on
    uals serving time in correctional centres often          injuries to staff and inmates resulting from
    possess health risk factors that may increase            the use of force, to adequately support
    their level of vulnerability. When the Ministry in-      the introduction of ECD technology.
    troduced the ECD technology it would ap-
    pear that there was no assessment                        Assessment of the problem – It appears
    conducted of the health needs of the inmate              that the Ministry did not complete an
    population and the relationship this may have            analysis of the effectiveness (incidence
    to ECD technology.                                       and prevalence of injuries) of current tech-
                                                             nology (pepper spray, batons, shield, and
                                                             physical restraints) employed in correction-
                                                             al centres in comparison to the effective-
                                                             ness of ECDs. Tactical and operational
                                                             reviews with respect to ECD technology
                                                             were limited and relied heavily on reports
                                                             produced for law enforcement agencies.

Ombudsman Saskatchewan                                                           My Brother’s Keeper

E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
  The population and circumstances that                  any concerns that community stakeholders
  law enforcement agencies may encounter                 may have raised.
  may be quite different than that encoun-
  tered by the correctional system. The                  Performance monitoring and evaluation –
  Ministry appeared to acknowledge this dif-             ECDs were restricted to the ER teams and
  ference by restricting the use of ECDs to              reporting guidelines were implemented,
  the ER teams, but did so without a clear               but no formal evaluation plan could be
  assessment as to whether the addition of               found to assess the outcomes (intended or
  the ECD was actually needed.                           unintended) and effectiveness of ECD use.

  Review of the human effects of ECDs – It
  appears that the Ministry relied on limited         Section 4 Summary
  information on the human effects of ECDs            Adequate and complete information is essen-
  in vulnerable populations and relied                tial when creating public policy. The Ministry’s
  heavily on information available from the           current information system (CMIS) and data
  distributor and manufacturer. The Ministry          collection methods and practices appear to
  also did not complete an assessment of              be limited in that they could not be fully used
  the provincial inmate population that iden-         to assist Ministry staff in identifying the issue
  tified the prevalence of potential risk             and scope of the problem in order to develop
  factors associated with potential, but unin-        policy solutions based both on qualitative and
  tended, adverse effects of ECD technolo-            quantitative data.
  gy. Finally, and most importantly, Ministry
  staff did not adequately consult with their         Though there were deficits and limitations in
  medical staff or other medical practition-          the ECD policy development process, it does
  ers versed in the use and effects of ECD            appear that the Ministry’s primary intention
  technology.                                         was not simply to bring in a new security tool.
                                                      Instead, their intention was to address a per-
  Consultation – The Ministry, in their review        ceived need. Ministry staff were mindful of a
  of ECDs, primarily conducted internal con-          number of the risks associated with ECD tech-
  sultations between the Ministry, the correc-        nology. They did restrict the use of ECD tech-
  tional centres, the Union, and other federal        nology and ensured that their staff received
  or provincial correctional authorities. No          the appropriate training. The goal throughout
  other consultation process was used as the          the process, as stated to the Ombudsman re-
  Ministry developed the plan for the imple-          viewers, was to be “pro-active but balanced”
  mentation of ECDs. Other stakeholders               and in line with the current practice philoso-
  should have been consulted, specifically            phy of direct supervision and core correc-
  the inmate population, FSIN, or advocacy            tional standards.
  groups. While it is recognized that security
  operations and decisions are within the             What would have assisted the Ministry is the al-
  sole purview of correctional staff, consulta-       location of adequate resources to the issue,
  tion with the other stakeholders is not             and informational systems and databases
  meant to ask for permission or gain con-            that could support the policy development
  sensus, but to ensure that the needs and            process.
  vulnerabilities of the population are
  brought to the attention of correctional
  staff prior to the introduction of ECD tech-
  nology. Consultation with key stakeholders
  can also be used to dispel any myths asso-
  ciated with ECD technology and address

     My Brother’s Keeper                                                       Ombudsman Saskatchewan

     E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
     Section 5: The Legislative Authority                  ECD Training
                                                           Overall, the training provided by the Ministry is
     There are times when Correctional Workers             adequate and provides the correctional
     (CW) will have to use force to carry out their        workers with the information required to oper-
     mandated responsibilities.                            ate the ECD and/or support the operation of
                                                           the device in a use-of-force situation.

     The Use of Force Management Model                     The use of ECD technology within a correc-
     Divisional Directive Security-001outlines the         tional facility is fairly new in Canada. As more
     Use of Force Management Model currently               data is gathered in other provincial jurisdic-
     employed in the correctional centres (please          tions, new information will likely emerge. It is
     see Appendix 1), and is considered a central          vital that training information is current and re-
     practice guide when implementing Divisional           flective of the correctional environment in
     Directives respecting use-of-force situations.        Canada.
     The model recognizes that situations can es-
     calate or de-escalate, requiring very different
     responses from the correctional staff.                The Training of Correctional Centre Medical
                                                           The ER team members appear to have been
     ECD Placement in the Use of Force                     adequately trained, but the Ministry failed to
     Management Model                                      train or provide information to its medical serv-
     Currently, ECDs are considered an intermedi-          ices staff about the possible side effects of an
     ate weapon in the same category as pepper             ECD application. This oversight was pointed
     spray or physical restraints. The ECD place-          out by the Ombudsman reviewer during this
     ment in the provincial correctional Use of            review and the Ministry has acknowledged
     Force Management Model mirrors what is cur-           this oversight.
     rently found in a number of policing agencies.
     In the corrections model, the ECD placement
     corresponds to the mid-range of restraint be-
     haviour in policing models. Such behaviour
     typically includes: the person resisting control
     by pulling away, pushing, running away, or
     avoiding and or not following instructions
     (Commissioner for Public Complaints against
     RCMP, 2007, p. 26). The practice, however, as
     outlined in the Divisional Directives would sug-
     gest that the ECDs should be placed in the
     same category as an impact weapon and
     only be used in a situation where there is ac-
     tive, overt, and violent resistance, and imme-
     diate control is required.

Ombudsman Saskatchewan                                                            My Brother’s Keeper

E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
Section 6: Current Practices for ECD                  Use of Medical Services and Medical
Use in Correctional Centres                           Monitoring
                                                      ECD and the other related use-of-force poli-
The reviewers could find no known “best prac-         cies require that the ER team consult (if time
tice” standards for ECD use in Canadian cor-          allows) with medical services staff (nurses)
rectional facilities. This is not surprising as the   about the medical condition of the inmate.
technology is fairly new and is used in only a        Use-of-force policies outline the medical serv-
small number of correctional facilities. The          ices to be provided to inmates, staff, and by-
Ombudsman, however, did find standard cur-            standers, and the reporting requirements for
rent practices respecting ECD use across              all use-of-force situations. The ECD is, however,
other provincial jurisdictions.                       unique and very new technology. In addition,
                                                      not enough is known about the human effects
Saskatchewan in Relation to Other                     of an ECD on vulnerable populations. The Min-
Jurisdictions                                         istry should clarify the role of medical staff with
Overall, Saskatchewan’s policies and proce-           respect to ECD use and expand the medical
dures fall in line with current standard practice     services provided and reporting requirements
across jurisdictions. There are, however, cer-        of medical staff.
tain procedures that could be clarified,
strengthened or expanded upon.                        Information to Inmate and Community
                                                      None of the policies we reviewed (including
Deployment Conditions                                 Saskatchewan’s) require that correctional
Given the limited research regarding the ac-          staff provide written information to the af-
tual levels of pain and the unknown psycho-           fected inmate after he is shot and/or stunned
logical effects associated with ECD                   with an ECD, including what, if any, side ef-
application, the Ministry must be extremely           fects he should be self-monitoring and report-
cautious about ECD usage in its stun mode.            ing to medical staff. This may be done
                                                      verbally, but it is possible that in busy centres
In addition, reporting documentation guide-           the information may not be passed on to the
lines as outlined in the Taser Deployment Re-         inmate in a timely manner.
port do not adequately capture information
with respect to ECD use in the stun mode.             There are times when, following an ECD
                                                      incident, an inmate may be taken to a
One of the primary advantages of the X26 is           community hospital for treatment and follow-
its use as a compliance tool. The policy is not       up. It is vital that community hospitals are also
clear about whether the X26 can be used in-           aware of the technology and any potential
dependently in presentation mode. The Taser           adverse side effects.
Deployment Report also does not gather ade-
quate information to document the effective-
ness of X26 when used in presentation mode.

Limiting the Cycles
Though practice varies across Canada, it
would appear that Saskatchewan is the only
province that does not clearly define or out-
line the duration of initial or subsequent cycles
or whether the cycles must be continuously
applied or can be interrupted.

     My Brother’s Keeper                                                       Ombudsman Saskatchewan

     E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
     Recommendation Overview                               Recommendation #7
                                                           The Ministry review the placement of the ECD
     Recommendation #1                                     in its Use of Force Management Model and,
     Prior to considering the introduction of ECD          should the Ministry proceed with the introduc-
     technology in the provincial correctional sys-        tion of ECD technology, place the ECD in the
     tem the Ministry convene a multi-disciplinary         impact weapon category.
     panel, inclusive of medical practitioner(s) who
     are versed in the potential effects of ECD or         Recommendation #8
     similar technology, to review the available re-       Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
     search concerning the human effects of ECD            in correctional centres, all standing orders be
     technology. Special attention should be paid          completed and approved by the Ministry prior
     to the effects on vulnerable populations such         to allowing any ECD to be in the physical pos-
     as those found in the provincial adult correc-        session of a correctional centre.
     tional system.
                                                           Recommendation #9
     Recommendation #2                                     Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
     The Ministry consult with the Ministry of Justice     in correctional centres, the Ministry annually
     about the potential liability of the use of ECD       review its ECD training and ensure the training
     technology in the adult correctional system.          material is current and that the content ade-
                                                           quately reflects the correctional workers’ roles
     Recommendation #3                                     and responsibilities in a provincial correctional
     The Ministry establish a reporting system that        centre.
     will allow CPSP to objectively determine the
     volatility of its correctional centres.               Recommendation #10
                                                           Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
     Recommendation #4                                     in correctional centres, the Ministry review the
     The Ministry create and make available serv-          number of days available for ERT training and
     ices and programming designed to meet the             ensure that adequate time is allotted for ECD
     needs of the remand population.                       certification and re-certification.

     Recommendation #5                                     Recommendation #11
     The Ministry conduct a health needs assess-           Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
     ment of its male inmate population and that           in correctional centres, prior to doing so the
     this information be factored in, should the Min-      Ministry update the applicable Directives to
     istry consider the introduction of ECD technol-       reflect the presence and potential use of ECD
     ogy in the adult male correctional centres.           technology. The applicable Directives should
                                                           also outline the training requirements and the
                                                           certification and re-certification process re-
     Recommendation #6                                     quired of an ECD operator.
     The Ministry consider the development of a
     position dedicated to the coordination of se-
     curity operations and programs within the             Recommendation #12
     adult correctional system.                            Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology,
                                                           the Ministry consult with an independent med-
                                                           ical practitioner(s) about the potential health
                                                           risks associated with ECD technology, and
                                                           that the information be incorporated into the
                                                           training of correctional staff (correctional
                                                           workers and all medical staff). In addition, the

Ombudsman Saskatchewan                                                            My Brother’s Keeper

E xe c u t i ve S u m m a r y a n d R e co m m e n d at i o n O ve r v i e w
consulted medical practitioner reviews all of         Recommendation #18
the Ministry’s policies and procedures on the         Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
use of ECDs to ensure that they comply with           in correctional centres, the Ministry revise the
current knowledge about the potential health          current Directive to specifically outline:
                                                         Initial cycle length.
Recommendation #13                                       Whether the initial cycle can be interrupt-
Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology,            ed or is to be continuous.
the Ministry provide training to its entire med-         How many additional cycles are allowed,
ical services staff (nurses and doctors) about           and the length or duration of those addi-
the technology and its potential health ef-              tional cycles before the ER team must then
fects.                                                   consider or apply other use-of-force
Recommendation #14
Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology,         Recommendation #19
the Ministry, in consultation with regional           Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
health officials, ensure that local community         in correctional centres, the Ministry revise its
hospitals are provided with information about         current reporting requirements as found in the
the technology and its potential health ef-           TASER Deployment Report to capture informa-
fects.                                                tion on the use of multiple cycles, including
                                                      the duration and the number allowed.
Recommendation #15
Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology,         Recommendation #20
the applicable Divisional Directive (DDS-0034)        Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
expressly articulate and limit the number and         in correctional centres, they clarify the role of
duration of applications of the X26 when used         medical staff in relation to ECD use and ex-
in stun mode.                                         pand the medical services provided (required
                                                      medical examination, monitoring of inmate
Recommendation #16                                    following ECD application) and reporting re-
                                                      quirements (monitoring reports) of medical
Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology,
reporting guidelines be developed that
accurately document the conditions under
which the stun mode can be used, as well as           Recommendation #21
the number and duration of touch stun                 Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
applications.                                         they, in consultation with medical staff, create
                                                      an informational package for inmates ex-
Recommendation #17                                    posed to the ECD (in probe and stun modes)
                                                      and that medical staff provide the package
Should the Ministry introduce ECD technology
                                                      to the affected inmate and explain the infor-
in correctional centres, the relevant Directives
                                                      mation and assist the inmate as required.
(DDS-0034) be reviewed to clarify issues re-
lated to if and when the ECD can be used in
presentation mode. Also, reporting guidelines
on the use and effectiveness of the ECD as a
compliance tool should be developed.


To top