THE SYSTEMS DYNAMICS EVALUATION MODEL IS A MATHEMATICAL MODEL ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING PRACTICES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND DESIGNED TO ALLOW PREDICTION AND PROJECTION OF THE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICIES ON SYSTEM FUNCTIONING. TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS ARE APPARENT IN THE APPLICATION OF SUCH A MODEL: (1) THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS AN EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND DIVERSE ORGANISM, UNLIKE THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS FOR WHICH THIS TYPE OF MODELING WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED; AND (2) THE FOCUS ON MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS MAY BY THEIR EMPHASIS ON EFFICIENCY SERVE TO OBSCURE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES. IN 1971, CONGRESS PASSED A LAW PERMITTING THE BAIL-SETTING MAGISTRATE TO OPENLY CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE DESIGNED TO AFFORD THE DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. HOWEVER, THE NEW LAW DID NOT ELIMINATE THE MONEY BOND AND CONSEQUENTLY DEFENDANTS THOUGHT TO BE DANGEROUS ARE DETAINED BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF A HIGH MONEY BOND; THE QUESTION OF RELEASE OR DETENTION, RATHER THAN BEING DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY, IS DECIDED IN TERMS OF THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF THE ACCUSED. THE RESTRICTED BAIL/SPEEDY TRIAL PROPOSAL FAILS TO ADDRESS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF HOW THE SYSTEM MAY BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY THOSE WHO SHOULD BE RELEASED OR DETAINED. RAHTER, IT PROPOSES A MORE RESTRICTIVE APPROACH BASED ON THE SAME ILLOGICAL SYSTEM. IT IGNORES THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE ALTERNATIVES WHICH COMBINE GREATER COMMUNITY PROTECTION WITH LESS PREVENTIVE DETENTION. ONE ALTERNATIVE IS TO ELIMINATE THE MONEY BOND. IN CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANT MAY POSE A THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY, A FULL HEARING WOULD BE HELD. IF DETENTION SEEMS NECESSARY, THE DEFEDANT IS RETAINED REGARDLESS OF HIS ECONOMIC STANDING. THE RESTRICTED BAIL/SPEEDY TRIAL PROPOSAL TENDS TO BLUR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ARRESTED AND CONVICTED POPULATION, BETWEEN THE INNOCENT AND THE GUILTY, AND BETWEEN THE DANGEROUS AND THE NONDANGEROUS. WHILE SUCH A DRAGNET APPROACH MAY BE POLITICALLY POPULAR, IT IS NOT AN EFFICIENT METHOD OF CRIME PREVENTION. NO REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)