Penal Reform and Probation in Europe: Positive Change of Direction, ‘Nudges to the Rudder’, or ‘Steady as She Goes’?
| Author | VIVIAN GEIRAN |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12192 |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 1. March 2017 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12192
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 72–91
Penal Reform and Probation in
Europe: Positive Change of Direction,
‘Nudges to the Rudder’, or ‘Steady
as She Goes’?
VIVIAN GEIRAN
Director, Irish Probation Service
Abstract: Penal policy can be influenced by a range of factors, including fear of crime,
punitive priorities, and perceived future threats to public safety. Nevertheless, there have
been some reductions in numbers in prison globally, echoed in reducing numbers on
probation supervision in Europe, in recenttimes. Such trends raise the question of whether
there is a discernible movement towards penal reform, and if so, what influences such
movement. The possible influence of supranational bodies, changes in communications
media, greater attention to former service users, and generally improved stakeholder
engagement, are considered. In particular, the influence of probation practice and its
values on the wider criminal justice system and penal policy are explored. The author
concludes that offender rehabilitation may have come through a challenging period to
become again a central (yet fragile) pillar of penal policy, evidencing in turn the ‘green
shoots’ of further potential positive change.
Keywords: penal policy; penal reform; policy transfer; probation; offender
rehabilitation; supranational bodies
I am honoured and delighted to be here today, delivering the 19th annual
Bill McWilliams memorial lecture. I want to thank the Bill McWilliams
memorial lecture steering group, in particular Professor Rob Canton and,
of course, Brenda McWilliams. Thank you all for being here and I look
forward to engaging further with you over the course of the afternoon. I
am conscious that a number of those who have delivered previous lectures
are present here today, as well as many colleagues and friends – so, no
pressure! I am familiar with Bill’s writings and especially his quartet of
articles on the development of probation in Britain (McWilliams 1983,
1985, 1986, 1987). Those articles are ones I have quoted many times and
to which I return from time to time, when I need to get in touch with the
foundations of where we have come from, in probation – a theme to which
I will return later.
72
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 1. March 2017
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 72–91
What I plan to do here is to consider the general state of play of proba-
tion practice in Europe, and its place in, and influence on, the development
of penal policy. I believe that is an important perspective, as probation –
no more than other parts of the justice system – cannot exist or be consid-
ered in isolation from each other, and indeed from other jurisdictions and
wider influences. While I cannot consider every possible or conceivable
angle of importance or relevance, I will consider matters from a number
of perspectives, and wearing two different hats, so to speak, in particular:
as the head of the Irish Probation Service, and as chair or president of
the Working Group on PenologicalCo-operation of the Council of Europe
(CoE), the PC-CP. For those of you who may not be familiar with the struc-
ture of such CoE bodies, the PC-CP is a working group of nine experts –
all from different countries – from the fields of probation, prisons and
related areas.
The nine members are elected, as vacancies arise, from nominations
made from the 47 CoE member states, and meet at least four times a year,
in Strasbourg, France. Members’ terms of service are for two years, renew-
able for a further two years. I was nominated by Ireland and elected to the
PC-CP at the end of 2013. I was elected by the group, as its chair, from the
beginning of 2016; a position I will hold for two years, with the possibility
of renewal for a further two years. The PC-CP is the group that has pro-
duced a range of practice standards and guidelines in the probation and
prisons fields; for example the European Probation Rules; Prison Rules;
rules on electronic monitoring (EM), juveniles, foreign national prison-
ers, dangerous offenders and many others. The current work programme
includes drafting guidelines and a handbook on addressing – in prisons
and probation – radicalisation to violent extremism, revising the European
Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures and work on producing a
CoE White Paper on Prison Overcrowding. More information is available
on the PC-CP webpage of the CoE website.
I am equally conscious of the context within which I speak, that is in the
cradle of European probation – not a term I use lightly – and a jurisdiction,
in England and Wales, that has undergoneconsiderable change in criminal
justice policy terms, and in how probation work is organised and delivered,
as well as in terms of its position in Europe. The wider issue of the United
Kingdom’s position in the European Union will, of course, be decided by
the British people in the coming few days, and I do not propose to dwell on
that issue at all here. In what I have to say, I will use ‘the literature’ insofar
as I can, as evidence for what I say, but I will include my own subjective
observations in relation to a number of issues. So, what I propose to do is
in four parts:
1. First, I will explain what started my thinking, follow though with an
Irish example and outline the broad international context in which
probation and penal reform are occurring;
2. Second – I will explore probation as a ‘brand’, the deepening of policy
transfer, the value of shared histories and the importance of suprana-
tional bodies;
73
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial