Cupboard Love or Passing Fancy?
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600317 |
| Published date | 01 September 1989 |
| Date | 01 September 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
141
LETTERS
Deadline
for
letters
in
our
December
Issue
is
November
1st
Risk
Scale
Rigidity
Ashley
Toms,
in
his
article
’Risk
and
Alternatives
to
Custody’
(Pj.
March
’89),
highlights
the
dangers
likely
to
arise
if
practitioners
allow
themselves
to
become
locked
into
mechanistic
and
rigid
notions
of
’alternatives
to
custody’
and
’risk
of
custody’.
It
is
essential
therefore
that
we
be
clear
about
the
meaning
and
use
of
such
concepts.
Risk
of
Custody.
The
value
of
hav-
ing
some
means
of
quantifying
the
likelihood
that
the
court
may
be
think-
ing
in
terms
of
a
custodial
sentence
is
that
it
can
assist
report
writers
to
be
alert
to
the
need
for
purposeful
and
well
argued
recommendations,
in
order
to
secure
a
community
based
sentence.
As
such
it
is,
at
best,
a
useful aid
to
pro-
fessional
judgement.
What
it
cannot
(or
should
not)
be
used
for
is
to
provide
a
substitute
for
such
thought
and
judgement,
by
automatically
triggering
a
particular
response
where
a
par-
ticular
ROC
figure
is
produced.
Any
form
of
technological
assistance
is
valuable
to
the
extent
that
it
assists
us
to
achieve
our
purposes.
It
is
disastrous
if
it
becomes
our
controller
instead.
Alternatives
to
Custody.
Thinking
in
terms
of ATC
is
essentially
negative;
it
defines
custody
as
the
norm
and
col-
ludes
with
a
culture
in
which
anything
else
is
a
second
best
substitute.
It
also
risks
encouraging
the
Service
to
pro-
vide
’tough’,
’beefed
up’
options
in
order
to
be
able
to
compete.
The
con-
sequence,
as
Ashley
Toms
suggests,
is
then
that,
by
selling
such
options
to
the
courts
as
custody
equivalents,
we
unintentionally
push
people
up
the
tariff.
The
task
then
is
to
use
ROC
scores
to
help
sharpen
our
awareness
of
where
an
offender
may
be
starting
from,
in
terms
of
the
tariff,
but
then
to
use
that
awareness
to
argue
cogently
for
an
appropriate
and
community-
based
option,
not
as
an
alternative
to
anything,
but
as
the
most
constructive
and
relevant
way
of
dealing
with
this
particular
offender
for
this
particular
offence.
Graham
Shepherd
SPO,
Crewe
Cupboard
Love
or
Passing
Fancy?
I
was
interested
in
David
Millard’s
’Looking
Back
to
the
Future’
(VOI,36
No.1)
and
empathise
with
him.
However,
I
would
query
a
couple
of
statements
such
as
’the
important
prin-
ciples
of
consistent
care’.
I
think
this
can
be
overstated
as
can
be
the
com-
ment
that
most
clients
need
to
have
one
particular
probation
officer.
It
is
true
that
clients
suiter
if
they
are
shuffl-
ed
around
between
several
probation
officers
but
most
clients
respond
to
continuity
of
care
from
whoever
is
giv-
ing
it.
It is
good
practice
they
often
res-
pond
to,
not
necessarily
the
probation
officer.
I
think
some
probation
officers
over-value
their
so
called
’special
rela-
tionship’
with
a
client.
I
believe
that
it
is
often
cupboard
love
i.e.
who
will
provide
the
goods.
It
is
true
that
efficiency
should
not
be
achieved
at
a
cost
to
the
client,
To continue reading
Request your trial