A Lawyer's View of the Probation Service
| Published date | 01 September 1968 |
| Date | 01 September 1968 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056801400302 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
A LAWYER’S VIEW
OF THE PROBATION SERVICE
Alec Samuels
Lecturer in Law in the University of Southampton
NEW APPROACHES to the sentencing and treatment of offenders are naturally
making a considerable impact upon the probation service. The service, which is
being drawn more and more into the penal system, is growing in influence, power
and authority, especially in the decision-making process relating to the type of
non-custodial sentence to be imposed and in the length of the prison sentence
to be served.
FINES
The merits of the fine as a sentence are well known. It costs the State nothing
in money and resources. An economic sanction often operates as a powerful
deterrent. &dquo;Success rates&dquo; are high. There are those, such as Dr. Nigel Walker,
who advocate that the fine should always be used for first offenders and that
probation should only be tried if the fine fails, a view which has been challenged
on the basis that this represents a statistical, theoretical or depersonalised
approach to sentencing. The fine has become a more flexible instrument of penal
policy, and we may expect more extensive use of it. More, and heavier, fines
will mean more fine defaulters. The attachment of earnings procedure is unlikely
to be successful because it acts as a disincentive to overtime, disclosure of the
conviction may prejudice security of employment, and the order lapses when a
man changes his job. Percentage deduction through the instrumentality of tax
and social security documents would be the answer. Magistrates may be
frustrated by the mandatory suspended sentence when they wish to send an
offender to prison and be tempted to impose a very heavy fine, even an excessive
fine, and the probation service must seek to guard against this, because an
excessive fine is useless. However, the critical matter for the probation service
is the provision which says that a committal order may not be made unless
&dquo; the court has considered or tried all other methods of enforcing payment of
the sum and it appears to the court that they are inappropriate or unsuccessful &dquo;.
Thus it would appear that a money payment supervision order will have to be
made on the fine defaulter at some stage. It is surely not &dquo; inappropriate &dquo; that
the probation service is hard pressed and anyway dislikes money payment
supervision orders. But it looks as though there will be rather more of these
in future. There are those who see such an order as an opportunity for positive
and constructive help for a person whose default in payment may be symptomatic
of some disturbance or inadequacy. Others feel that debt collecting is not for the
probation officer, and that without proper preliminary enquiries casework in
this situation, terminable at will by payment, is not practicable, and indeed a
potential future relationship may be damaged. The answer may be to recruit
more ex-policemen or volunteers for this job, to work under the control of the
probation service. It is submitted that in appropriate cases it is incumbent upon
the service to provide proper social assistance for the fine defaulter in order
to enable him to improve his budgetary control, to meet his obligations and to
keep out of further trouble.
74
PROBATION ORDER
The probation order itself has become a more flexible instrument of penal
policy. A probation order may be discharged by the supervising court, unless
the order was originally imposed by quarter sessions or assizes and power to
discharge was expressly reserved, and accordingly greater use of discharge may
be expected. Probation may be converted into conditional discharge, which may
now run for three years, though this will entail the court appearance of the
offender. To an outsider it seems that more research and a clearer policy is
needed on the question of the length of an order and the discharge procedure.
There are several arguments in favour of the long order. At the time of sentence
the future cannot be predicted with confidence. Support and control can be
effectively reduced almost to vanishing point if necessary. A &dquo; dormant &dquo;
probationer on the case-load may act as a protection against the imposition of
excessive work. Application can be made to the court for discharge, a public
demonstration of success. Practically all court orders involve status degradation
whereas discharge of probation is...
To continue reading
Request your trial