Fifty Years Ago
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056901500104 |
| Published date | 01 March 1969 |
| Date | 01 March 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
12
relationships
that
have
to
be
formed
between
a
boy
and
his
peers
and
the
adults
in
charge.
Finally,
having
discussed
in
some
detail
the
group
implications
of
the
Hafod
Meurig
structure,
some
basic
differences
between
the
functions
of
the
group
worker
and
the
caseworker
may
be
more
apparent.
The
most
obvious
and
important
of
these
is
the
fact
that,
at
this
centre
we
are
dealing
with
a
group
whereas
the
probation
officer
is
coping
with
iiidii,idiials.
As
I
have
suggested,
very
often
the
probation
officer
acts
as
the
accepting,
tolerant
authority
figure
in
a
world
where
the
probationer
finds
himself
controlled
and
even
rejected
by
community
interests
(school,
workplace,
family).
Hafod
Meurig
is
a
com-
unity,
and
so
group - sometimes
as
opposed
to
individual - interests
have
to
be
considered.
In
the
second
place,
the
probation
officer
usually
has
between
one
and
three
years
to
&dquo;work
through&dquo;
the
problems
and
defences
of
his
client.
At
Hafod
Meurig
we
’have
only
three
weeks.
As
I
hope
I
have
illustrated,
the
centre
goes
as
far
as
it
can
to
bring
misbehaviour
and
testing
out
into
the
open
and
subsequently
cope
with
it
rather
than
to
suppress
it,
but
in
the
group
situation
group
interests
have
to
be
considered
and
the
individual
cannot
always
be
hallowed
the
acceptance
and
toleration
the
probation
officer
is
able
to
give.
FIFTY
YEARS
AGO
From
the
Journal
of
the
National
Association
of
Probation
Officers,
No.
10
February
1919,
part
of
an
address
by Mr.
Maxwell,
Home
Office.
&dquo;Hitherto
probation
has
been
applicable
to
a
comparatively
small
portion
of
the
prisoners
coming
before
the
courts,
but
it
may
in
the
future
be
applicable
to
a
very
much
larger
portion.
The
clause
in
the
Criminal
Justice
Administration
Bill
which
makes
it
clear
that
a
probation
order
may
contain
a
condition
as
to
residence,
opens
up
wide
possibilities
of
varied
methods
of
dealing
with
the
varied
cases
coming
before
the
courts.
As
homes
and
institutions
of
various
kinds
are
provided
for
the
different
types
of
wrongdoers
with
whom
the
courts
have
to
deal,
the
magistrates
will,
I
am
sure,
make
increasing
use
of
this
provision.
Many
other
modifications
of
our
methods
of
dealing
with
offenders
are
now
being
discussed,
and
considerable
amendments
of
our
penal
system
may
be
proposed
in
the
future.
The
probation
officers
ought
to
have
an
important
influence
in
shaping
any
such
developments
or
amendments,
and
the
Association
of
Probation
Officers
should
become
one
of
these
expert
professional
bodies
to
whom
legislators
and
administrators
naturally
look
for
advice.
The
functions
of
the
probation
officer
give
him
exceptions1
opportunities
of
studying
the
character,
the
homes
and
social
and
industrial
conditions
of the
people
who
come
before
the
courts,
and
already
many
magistrates
look
to
the
probation
officer
to
make
preliminary
enquiries
about
cases
and
to
give
the
court
advice
which
helps
them
to
decide
how
to act
in
difficult
cases.
As
the
system
develops,
I
feel
little
doubt
that
the
probation
officer
will
ultimately
be
regarded
by
the
courts
as
an
official
almost
as
indispensable
as
the
justices’
clerk.
Just
as
the
court
looks
to
the
clerk
for
advice
on
the
legal
aspect
of the
case,
so
they
wiH
look
to
the
probation
officer
for
advice
on
social
and
psychological
aspects.
They
will
regard
the
information
which
the
probation
ofhcer
can
give
regarding
the
history
and
character
of
the
offender,
his
habits
and
home
conditions,
as
an
indispensable
consideration
in
deciding
as
to
the
appropriate
punishment
or
method
of
dealing
with
the
case.&dquo;
To continue reading
Request your trial