Probation and the Chronic Drinker
| Date | 01 September 1983 |
| Published date | 01 September 1983 |
| Author | Paul Goodman |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058303000305 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
96
Probation
and
the
Chronic
Drinker
Paul
Goodman
Probation
Officer,
Oxford
The
author
argues
on
the
basis
of
experience
in
Oxford
that
we
can
help
to
keep
chronic
drinkers
out
of
prison
by
offering
choices,
making
sobriety
attractive,
and
accepting
relapse,
without
resorting
to
simplistic
programmes
of
chemical
containment,
or
adding
extra
conditions
to
probation
orders.
In
March
1982,
Probation
Journal
published
an
article
by
Colin
Brewer
advocating
more
active
involvement
by
the
Probation
Service
in
offering
the
Courts
alternatives
to
imprisonment
for
alcoholic
offenders.
His
article
mustbe
welcomed
in
that
it
draws
attention
to
a
group
of clients
more
often
associated
with
Probation
contact
on
an
office
duty
’50
pence’
after-care
basis
than
as
a
client
group
worthy
of
statutory
supervision.
Brewer
suggested
that
a
Probation
Order
with
a
condition
inserted
for
the
supervised
administration
of
antabuse
would
be
’simple,
effective
and
economical
of
time
and
money’ .’
I
Indeed,
he
goes
on
to
say
that
’the
actual
supervision
process
takes
only
half a
minute
and
can
easily
be
delegated
to
clerical
or
unskilled
staff.
Such
an
approach
seems
tailormade
to
the
sponsors
of
the
new
Criminal
Justice
Act
and
a
Home
Office
confronted
by
a
dangerously
overloaded
prison
system.
This
article
will
attempt
to
describe
recent
developments
in
Oxford which
have
been
directed
towards
the
same
client
group
identified
by
Brewer.
As
will
become
apparent,
the
two
approaches
have
nothing
in
common
except
a
desire
to
keep
chronic
drinkers
out
of prison.
The
Oxford
approach,
we
believe,
is
more
in
keeping
with
traditional
social
work
values
which
perceives
the
client,
even
the
chronic
drinking
client,
as
a
person
with
needs
and
the
ability
to
make
choices.
Choosing
sobriety
We
start
from
the
assumption
that
the
drinker
is
capable
of
making
a
rational
choice
between
drinking
and
not
drinking,
depending
on
the
rela-
tive
pay-offs
which
the
contrasting
life-styles
offer.
In
drink,
the
cycle
of
street
parties’,
night
shelters,
police
cells,
court
appearances,
prison
sentences
and
back
to ‘skippering
out’ brings
with
it
an
anarchial
denial
of
responsibility,
companionship
shared
experience
and
validation
through
acceptance
by
fellow
travellers.
To
believe
that
in
many
cases
a
substitution
of
antabuse
can
sustain
a
contented
sobriety
is
to
fail
to
perceive
some
fairly
basic
human
needs
met
through
membership
of
a
drinking
fraternity.
Recognising
the
social
support
structures
available
to
the
drinker
in
drink,
we
have
concentrated
our
attention
in
building
up
a
network
of
facilities
to
support
the
drinker
in
sobriety.
To
obtain
and
maintain
sobriety
was
to
become
an
attractive
proposition.
Both
at
worker
level,
and
at
a
management
level,
the
initiative
was
taken
to
set
up
close
working
groups
between
all
agencies
within
the
City
in
an
attempt
to
evolve
a
co-ordinated
’package’ for
a
drinker
faced
with
the
option
of
sobriety.
This
concerted
effort
has
led
to
a
remarkable
breakthrough
in
setting
up
close
inter-agency
working
relationships
encompassing
statutory
and
voluntary
bodies,
medical
and
social.
Intervention
at
Court
This
new
approach
to
the
chronic
drinking
offender
has
allowed
for
intervention
by
the
Probation
Service
at
the
initial
court
appearance.
Each
day,
a
member
of the
Probation
Day
Centre
team
interviews
everyone
held
overnight
on
remand
in
police
custody
in
the
cells
below
the
Magistrates’
Court.
Homeless
drinkers
make up
a
regular
clientele.
Where
the
offence
is
imprisonable
(e.g.
shoplifting),
we
would
discuss
with
the
drinker
whether
he
would
like
to
have
a
report
prepared
with
the
possibility
of looking
into
getting
help
for
his
drinking
problem.
If,
on
discussion,
this
seems
to
be
a
reasonable
proposition,
we
would
arrange
with
the
Oxford
Cyreneans
for
accommodation
on
bail
pending
To continue reading
Request your trial