in parliament
| Published date | 01 September 1966 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056601200310 |
| Date | 01 September 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
111
probation
would
be
very
great.
Officers
could
ofter
their
opinions
to
the
courts
with
a
greater
degree
of
confidence
than
at
present,
and
magistrates
would
feel
able
to
give
the
opinions
greater
weight
when
deciding
sentence&dquo;.
(W.
McWilliams,
Cuse
Conference.
July
1966).
Dr.
Walker
believes
that the
sentencing
system
is
not
good
at
selecting
those
first
offenders
who
are
likely
to
do
welt
on
probation
(by
which
he
seems
to
mean
those
who
will
not
be
reconvicted).
The
assumption
behind
his
reasoning
is
that
the
so:e
purpose
of
a
sentencing
court
is
to
place
on
probation
only
those
who
will
not
&dquo;break
down&dquo;
in
breach
of
probation
or
further
offence.
Mr.
White
(Probation
Forum,
July
1966)
properly
draws
attention
to
the
fact
that
a
court
often
has
positive
reason,
based
usually
on
a
social
enquiry,
to
regard
a
first
offender’s
situation
as
sufficiently
serious
to
invoke
the
’help
of
a
probation
officer.
The
crisis,
stress
or
general
frustration
which
may
be
represented
by
an
offence,
or
experienced
by
an
offender
going
through
the
judicial
procedure,
is
not
readily
measured
by
statistical
method;
but
it
can
be
made
evident
to
the
perceptive
magistrate
by
the
social
enquiry
of
a
skilled
probation
officer.
This
assumption
calls
for
substantiation
and
some
support
may
be
found
from
the
Preliminary
Report
of the
Probation
Research
Project
(SOMPA).
A
lower
proportion
of
&dquo;fai’lures&dquo;
was
found
for
probationers
who
had
~been
the
subject
of
a
social
enquiry
as
against
those
who
had
not.
For
his
part,
Dr.
Walker
writes:
&dquo;Probation
provides
what
is
probably
the
best
chance
of
finding
out
what
is
wrong,
and
perhaps
of
putting
it
right&dquo;.
The
SOMPA
report
seems
to
suggest
that
such
diagnostic
appraisal
is
accom-
plished
at
least
in
part
through
the
social
enquiry
report.
Perhaps
it
is
as a
consequence
of
courts
discriminating
successfully
between
those
first
offenders
whose
needs
are
more
far
reaching
than
would
be
met
by
summary
fine
or
discharge,
that
Dr.
Walker
finds
a
higher
failure
rate
among
those
placed
on
probation.
Even
with
the
benefit
of
supervision
one
would
expect
them
to
produce
more
&dquo;failures&dquo;.
Take
heart,
decision-makers
and
enablers.
Look,
too
to
further
heartening
if
a
wider
use
of
social
enquiry
reports
for
adults
in
magistrates’
courts
heralds
an
improvement
of
the
probation
success
percentage.
There
may
even
come
a
day
when
probation
is
more
successful
than
fining!
GRAHAM
PARKER
in
parliament
A
FEW
DAYS
’before
Parliament
rose
for
the
summer
recess
there
was
a
general
debate
on
crime,
in
which
mar.
Quintin
Hogg
(Con.
Marylebone)
made
his
first
speech
as
shadow
Home
Secretary.
The
debate
ranged
over
a
very
wide
area,
Members
being
particularly
concerned
about
the
growth
of
crime
and
the
pressure
on
the
police.
Mr.
Mark
Carlisle
(Con.
Runcorn)
drew
attention
however
to
the
farcical
situation
in
which
the
probation
service
has
been
placed
because
of
the
freezing
of
salary
increases
for senior
and
principal
probation
oflicers
and
Mr.
Richard
Sharples
(Con.
Sutton
and
Cheam),
winding
up
the
debate,
also
commented
on
this
situation.
Mr.
Arthur
Lewis
(Lab.
West
Ham
South)
asked
a
number
of
questions
drawing
attention
to
the
fact
that
posts
were
still
being
advertised
in
the
probation
and
after-care
service
(amongst
others)
in which
it
stated
that
salary
scales
were
under
review,
although
in
fact
they
were
frozen.
On
the
day
the
House
rose,
he
asked
whether
the
Home
Secretary
was
aware
of
the
anomaly
under
which
senior
pro’ba-
To continue reading
Request your trial