Editor's Comment

DOI10.1177/026455058403100201
Published date01 June 1984
Date01 June 1984
Subject MatterArticles
41
Probation
Journal
Vol 31
No
2
June
1984
EDITOR’S
COMMENT j
Rationality
and
Crime
Reduction
There
is
a
modest
but
significant
snowballing
of
attention
in
the
Service
to
cnmmal
behaviour.
That
isn’t
as
mgenuous
as
it
may
sound -
like
suggesting
that
the
Pope
is
showing
increasing
interest
in
salvation.
The
mood
of the
moment
is
caught
accurately
in
one
CPO’s
communication
to
the
CQSW
course
at
Norwich:
’The
Probation
Service
is
now
expected
to
focus
on
offendmg
behaviour
and
finding
ways
of
helping
offenders
to
reduce
it,
as
opposed
to
offering
a
rather
vague
and
general
social
work
service ’
This
contribution
towards
future
efficiency,
economy
and
effectiveness
(the
Home
Office’s
3
‘E’s)
is
somewhat
pejorative
towards
alternative
working
perspectives,
but
does
identify
a
common
under-emphasis
on
clients’
offences.
It
wouldn’t
be
too
gross
a
generalisation
to
suggest
that
m
social
enquiry
work
and
subsequent
supervision
the
nature,
incidence
and
location
of
offending,
and
the
defendant’s
participation
therem,
has
received
thm
attention
compared
with
analysis
and
amelioration
of
the
stress
factors
present
in
the
client’s
upbringing
and
environment.
Complex
issues
of
motivation
and
choice
have
frequently
been
reduced
to
loose
notions
of
‘tmpulsmeness’
and
being
’easily
led’.
What
we
know
about
the
way
probation
officers
make
sense
of deviant
behaviour
is
mainly
drawn
from
Pauline
Hardiker’s
work
on
SER
writing.’
She
concluded
that
we
do
not
follow
predominantly
determmist
explanations,
but
vary
pragmatically
m
the
light
of
the
seriousness
of
the
offence
and
length
of criminal
record
(Interestingly,
though,
determinism
held
greater
explanatory
weight
for
more
serious
and
more
persistent
offenders).
Probation
officers
have
certamly
not
gained
much
help
from
the
confusmg
messages
of
cnrmnology,
neatly
encapsulated
m
Stan
Cohen’s
picture
of the
criminal
as
sociological
’Jekyll
and
Hyde;
rational
m
the
morning,
drifting
m
the
afternoon
and
brutalised
in
the
evemng.’2
This,
coupled
with
the
overwhelmmgly
bad
press
for
correctional
programmes
and
evaluations
based
on
future
offending
rates,
has
hardly
given
encouragement
to
offence-focused
practice.
Thus
Wilhs,
in
his
study
of probation
supervision,
noted’
’In
the
majority
of
encounters
there
was no
discussion
between
otficer
and
client
about
possible
re-offendmg
Where
this
did
occur,
it
was
cursory
and
brief
rather
than
directed
at
avoiding
any
repetition
of
criminal
misbehaviour
More
satisfaction
has
come
from
the
humamty
and
economy
of
our
intervention,
the
scope
for
other
targets
of ‘dtversion’ ,
and
the
prospects
for
’situational’
crime
reduction.
Correctional
Curriculum
The
outfit
which
has
done
more
than
most
to
emphasize
the
potential
in
management
of
the
criminal
justice
system
is
the
Umversity
of
Lancaster’s
Centre
of
Youth,
Crime
and
Community.
They
are
now
turning
their
attention
to
methods
of
face-to-face
practice
with
the
minority
of
’career’
young
offenders
for
whom
intensive
intervention
is
justified.
Their
edict
for
IT
is
to
shift
emphasis
from
compensatory
programmes
(challenging
the
energies
of the
young
by
directed
adventurous
activities
etc.)
to
a
correctional
curriculum’
which
concentrates
on
specific
delinquency-related
issues
with
the
promise
of preventing
further
breaches
of the
law
This
renaissance
of ‘treatment’ ,
now
harnessed
to
the
Justice
model,
is
bound
to
arouse
considerable
scepticism
and
h0~tlhty
Is Norman
Tutt
the
monetarist
guru
of
social
work,
as
he
has
been
picaresquely
accused,
or
is
he
promoting
new
insights
and
measurable
critena
which
can
help
our
credibility
and
survival~
Is
it
a
deeply
con-
servative,
conformity-promoting
dogma
or
a
liberating
recognition
of
the
subjecthood
of

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT