A Probation Committee Chairman Invites Correspondence
| Published date | 01 January 1934 |
| Date | 01 January 1934 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455053400101808 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
282
A
PROBATION
COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN
INVITES
CORRESPONDENCE.
To
the
Editor
of
&dquo;PROBATION.&dquo;
Sir,
Unless
a
County
Probation
Committee
publishes
more
or
less
full
details
of
Bench
reports,
it
is
difficult,
and
it
would
be
informative
and
useful,
for
magistrates
who
are
members
of
their
Bench
Probation
Committees
to
know
in
what
way
other
Committees
carry
out
their
duties
as
laid
down
in
the
Probation
Rules
of
zg26 ;
even
then
the
practice
probably
varies
between
Counties.
It
is
even
more
difficult,
and
certainly
more
important,
for
them
to
know
what
is
the
opinion
of
the
probation
officers
themselves
on
the
practice
of
their
own
Commit-
tees,
and
what
it
ought
to
be.
It
is
with
the
idea
of
eliciting
opinions
on
this
from
probation
officers
that
I
write
this
letter,
for
it
is
highly
important
that
Probation
Committees
should
work
in
harmony
with
their
probation
officers,
and
if
the
former
habitually
fall
short
of
or
exceed
what
would
help
the
latter,
it
does
not
tend
to
harmony.
Accordingly
I
make
the
following
suggestions
as
to
what
the
procedure
of
a
Probation
Committee
might
be.
The
first
Rule
affecting
procedure
is
10.
This
must
be
read
with
Rules
16, 17, 18
and
ig,
for
the
decision
on
how
often
the
various
duties
mentioned
therein
ought
to
be
carried
out
naturally
determines
the
frequency
of
the
meetings.
The
most
convenient
place
for
meeting
will
probably
be
the
magistrates’
room,
and
the
most
convenient
time
just
before
a
meeting
of
the
Bench-half
an
hour
before,
more
or
less
according
to
the
number
of
cases.
Once
a
month
would
perhaps
be
thought
to
be
often
enough,
but
I
do
not
think
that
proper
supervision
could
be
given
with
less
frequent
meetings.
At
these
meetings
each
probationer’s &dquo;leaf &dquo;
can
be
scrutinised
and
initialled
by
the
Chairman,
and
the
probation
officer
can
usually
add.some
useful
additional
verbal
information.
Some
member
of
the
Committee,
with
influence
in
the
right
quarter
may
often
be
able
to
find
work
for
a
probationer
where
the
probation
officer
has
failed,
and
some
may
have
more
local
knowledge
of
a
useful
nature
than
it
is
possible
for
an
officer
to
have
who
works
a
large
area
and
perhaps
lives
a
long
way
off.
Here
also
occurs
the
opportunity
for
the
probation
officer
to
report
to
the
Committee
under
Rule
46
(3)
any
minor
misdemeanour
on
the
part
of
the
probationer
not
demanding
immediate
report
to
the
Court.
The
Committee
can
then
consider
what
steps
to
take,
and
I
suggest
that
a
useful
one
is
to
summon
the
offender
before
them
as
soon
as
practicable
and
give
him
a
severe
caution.
The
Committee
could
also
help
the
probation
officer
under
Rule
43.
As
regards
these
meetings
between
the
Committee
and
probation
officers,
which
some
magistrates,
to
my
knowledge,
honour
more
often
in
the
breach
than
the
observance,
it
must
be
remembered
that
without
them
the
probation
officer
works
alone ;
with
no
one
to
praise
or
encourage
him,
no
one
with
whom
he
can
discuss
his
difficulties,
his
successes,
or
his
failures,
no
one
whose
help
and
advice
he
can
seek
when
a
case
is
going
wrong,
and,
I
must
add,
no
one
to
pull
him
up
for
his
mistakes
or
omissions
if
he
makes
any.
It
is
not
good
for
any one
to
work
alone.
It
is
often
difficult
for
a
presiding
magistrate
to
say
in
Court
all
that
ought
to
or
might
be
said
to
an
offender
whom
he
is
placing
on
probation ;
at
any
rate
it
is
often
not
done,
or
badly
done.
In
order
to
remedy
this,
some
Courts
have
adopted
the
practice
of
giving
to
the
probationer,
through
the
probation
officer,
a
circular
printed
letter
explaining
exactly
to
him
what
the
situation
is,
with
a
few
words
of
advice,
etc.,
added.
The
principle
objection
to
this
is
that
no
wording
of
a
letter
of
that
sort
could
be
applicable
to
all
cases
alike
and
yet
be
effective,
so
I
think
a
better
way
is
for
the
Chairman,
or
one
or
more
members
of
the
Committee,
to
see
the
probationer
at
once,
or
as
soon
as
possible
after
the
case
has
been
dealt
with,
at
some
convenient
place
in
the
court,
and
in
presence
of
the
probation
officer.
The
offender
can
then
be,
so
to
speak,
intro-
duced
to
the
probation
officer
as
such,
and
to
the
Com-
mittee,
the
Bench
Chairman’s
remarks
can
be
supple-
mented
(if
necessary),
and
the
situation
fully
explained.
It
can
also
be
impressed
on
him
that
the
object
and
wish
of
both
probation
officer
and
Committee
are
to
help
him,
and
that
the
Committee
will
get
periodical
reports
of
his
conduct
from
the
probation
officer
and
will
carefully
watch
his
progress
and
conduct.
In
my
opinion
some
such
procedure
as
this
immediately
after
being
put
on
probation
would
go
a
long
way
towards
making
pro-
bation
a
reality
to
the
offender
at
the
outset
instead
of
a
mere
formality
as
it
unfortunately
is
so
often
regarded.
Some
Courts,
when
making
the
order,
make
a
practice
of
instructing
a
probationer
to
report,
say,
once a
month
to
the
probation
officer.
The
object
being,
so
it
is
said,
to
ensure
that
he
does
report
at
least
so
often.
I
do
not
think
that
any
probation
officer
will
consider
that
to
be
a
good
reason.
I
strongly
deprecate
the
practice
myself,
because,
firstly,
it is
apt
to
give
the
offender
and,
what
is
nearly
as
important,
the
public
who
hear
the
order,
the
impression
that
probation
begins
and
ends
with
that
monthly
report ;
secondly,
because
in
my
view,
the
probationer
is
under
the
orders
of
the
probation
officer
to
report
when
and
where
the
latter
chooses,
and
what
is
a
matter
of
ordinary
routine,
ought
not
to
be
specially
ordered
by
the
Court.
Also
it
is
questionable
how
rule
4o
bears
on
such
an
order.
It
is
advisable
in
some
cases,
if
not
in
all,
for
the
Com-
mittee
to
see
the
probationer
just
before
the
end
of
his
time,
and
congratulate
and
encourage
him,
or
admonish
and
caution
him,
according
to
character
and
conduct ;
but
this
interview,
and
any
intermediate
one,
should
be
arranged
so
as
not
to
interfere
with
the
probationer’s
work,
if
any.
I
now
ask,
would
some
such
procedure
as
I
have
outlined
be
helpful
or
otherwise
to
probation
officers,
or
what
should
be
added
or
omitted ?
Is
it
adopted,
more
or
less,
by
some,
many,
or
any
Probation
Com-
mittees ?
An
expression
of
opinion
on
these
points
from
individual
probation
officers
and
from
your
Association
would,
I
feel
sure,
be
of
great
help
and
interest
to
members
of
Probation
Committees.
I
am,
Sir,
yours,
etc.,
COUNTRY
MAGISTRATE.
,
To continue reading
Request your trial