Does the Probation Service Really Care ?
| Date | 01 March 1982 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058202900111 |
| Published date | 01 March 1982 |
| Author | Joyce Lester |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
29
drink
related
disability,
perhaps
suscept-
ible
to
possible
’treatment’
through
a
probation
order.
To
ask
that
person
therefore
to
supply
evidence
of
not
having
a
drink
dependency
would,
in
our
view,
impinge
on
his
basic
rights
as
an
mdividual.
If,
as
Kenneth
Clarke
claims,
the
Government
wishes
to
apply
the
same
broad
principle
to
drink
drivers,
as
with
the
person
suffering
from
an
epileptic
disability,
it
would
need
to
be
clear
beyond
all
reasonable
doubt
that
it
could
relate
observable
behaviour
to
some
underlying
condition.
Conclusion
In
conclusion,
we
feel
that
the
pro-
posed
legislation
is
based
upon
ill-defined
objectives
which
fail
to
take
account
of
the
basic
rights
of
individuals.
As
we
have
argued,
in
failing
to
protect
the
rights
of
the
non-problem
drinker,
the
Government
proposals
do
not,
as
Ken-
neth
Clarke
claims,
share
the
same
broad
principle
of
disability
as
that
existing
under
present
legislation.
It
follows
that
any
probation
order
made
for
the
ultimate
purpose
of
examining
a
person’s
fitness
to
drive,
whether
in-
cluding
a
medical
condition
or
not,
could
place
probation
officers
in
the
invidious
position
of
being
the
agent
who
impinges
upon
the
individual’s
right
to
drive.
RFFFRFAICFC
1.
Hansard
(House
of
Commons)
(1981)
Committe
Stage
Debates
Standing
Com-
mittee
E,
vol
1. 26
March
1981.
Col
1332.
2.
Hansard
(House
of
Commons)
(1981)
Committee
Stage
Debates
Standing
Com-
mittee
E,
vol
1.
26
March
1981.
Col
1333.
Does
the
Probation
Service
Really
Care ?
Dear
Sir,
1
have
meant
to
write
this
&dquo;snort&dquo;
many
times
over
the
past
twelve
years
but
phases
of
passionate
anger
quickly
dissipate
as
the
next
&dquo;crisis&dquo;
looms
and
the
energy
required
never
manifested
itself.
What
causes
me
to
write
it
now
is
that
the
situation
seems
to
be
getting
worse!
It
is
about
those
inconvenient
and
inconsiderate
clients
that
insist
on
moving
from
one
probation
office
dis-
trict
to
another.
With
a
certain
amount
of
pomposity,
I
feel
that
I
can
claim
that
there
have
been
few
that
have
just
disappeared
on
me
and
that
in
each
instance
where
they
did,
I
have
eventually
taken
out
a
breach
warrant
or
made
the
appropriate
notification
to
head
office
for
onwards
transmission
to
the
Home
Office.
This
is
because
that
I
feel
that
a
person
&dquo;on
the
loose&dquo;
is
in
particular
danger
of
further
offences
and
I
con-
sider
that
trying
to
avert
further
offences
is
a
major
part
of
our
job,
and
quite
frankly,
what
the
courts
and
the
general
public
expect
us
to
be
doing
I
also
consider
that
the
committing
of
offences
is
often
the
major
problem
(sometimes
the
only
problem)
affecting
the
quality
of
my
clients’
lives
and
it
is,
therefore,
an
act
of
compassion
(as
well
as
a
clear
duty)
to
devote
a
major
part
of
my
energy
to
this
sphere.
Why
is
there
dilatoriness
about
trans-
fer ?
I
often
ask
and
by
the
answers
given
have
drawn
some
rather
jaundiced
conclusions.
1
To
my
mind,
a
person
either
needs
supervising
or
they
don’t.
If
they
don’t,
it
is
a
poor
reflection
on
our
Service
that
it
takes
a
move
from
our
area
before
we
realise
this.
If
they
do,
a
time
of
unsettlement
is
probably
the
most
essential
time
to
do
the
supervising.
Are
we
a
caring
service
or
do
we
exist
for
our
own
emotional
gratification
and
administrative
convenience
and
maybe
equally
important,
how
can
we
justify
our
jobs
at
all
if
we
ourselves
do
not
place
any
importance
on
keeping
in
regular
contact
with
those
who
are
given
to
us
as
clients.
Apologies
to
anyone
that
I
have
transferred
to
or
accepted
transfer
from
who
have
acted
with
alacrity
and
proper
concern
(and
you
are,
of
course,
excepted
from
my
criticism)
and
regrets
for
any
time
when
I
have
fallen
short
of
my
own
exacting
standards.
Yours
faithfully,
JOYCE
LESTER
Probation
Officer,
Basildon
To continue reading
Request your trial