probation forum
| Published date | 01 September 1966 |
| Date | 01 September 1966 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056601200309 |
| Author | Graham Parker |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
110
recognition
of
community
responsibility.
Some
also
think
that
it
is
necessary
for
the
skill
of
the
probation
office
to
be
based
on
an
experience
of
offenders
of
all
ages,
and
that
a
service
which
is
limited
to
dealing
with
older
offenders
will,
in
time,
offer
a
poorer
service
to
its
clients
because
its
understanding
of
the
bases
of
criminal
behaviour
will
at
best
be
only
theoretical.
They
would
therefore
favour
a
structure
which
allowed
specialists
to
deal
with
offenders
of
all
ages.
They
also
think
that
division
of
cases
by
age
is
artificial
and
that
the
probation
office
should
be
a
specialist
in
dealing
with
delinquency
problems
amongst
persons
of
all
ages,
the
allocation
of
cases
being
based
on
the
need
of
the
client.
Within
a
local
authority
service
the
help
and
skill
of
the
probation
officer
could
be
made
available
where
needed,
with
or
without
any
court
order.
33.
The
memorandum
which
is
now
submitted
has
been
prepared
in
some
haste
to
meet
the
wishes
of
the
Committee.
We
have
not,
therefore,
been
able
to
give
to
certain
matters
the
detailed
consideration
which
we
would
like
and
in
particular
we
wish
to
have
more
time
to
consider
the
training
of
staff.
We
hope
to
submit
another
document
to
the
Committee
to
deal
with
these
questions.
*
*
*
*
*
N.B.
The
National
Executive
Committee
of
N.A.P.O.
endorsed
the
above
statement
of
the
views
of
the
membership
of
the
Association
but,
while
recognising
the
minority
view
expressed,
reaflirmed
(by
a
vote
of
13
to
one,
with
two
abstentions)
its
view
that
the
probation
service
should
retain
its
separate
identity.
probation
forum
THE
MISUSE
OF
PROBATION
DR.
NIGEL
WALKER
(&dquo;The
Misuse
of
Probation&dquo;,
March
1966)
comes
near
to
ridiculing
the
whole
sentencing
process
in
the
courts
as
we
know
them,
in
so
far
as
decisions
are
affected
by
individual
discrimination.
In
so
doing
he
follows
a
path
well
worn
by
contemporary
criminologists
who
seek
an
ideal
solution
by
computation
.and
prediction.
Perhaps
space
did
not
allow
that
he
shou’ld
sub-
stantiate
each
step,
but
some
apparent
assumptions
concern
me.
What
is
proved
by
establishing
that
reconvictions
are
more
common
among
first
offenders
who
are
placed
on
probation
than
among
those
who
are
fined?
Can
we
assume
that
the
percentage
figure
produced
measures
the
effectiveness
of
that
type
of
sentence
on
any
first
offender,
or
is
it
only
a
measure
of
its
effectiveness
on
those
who
are
selected
for
fines?
In
other
words,
is
the
percentage
no
more
than
a
measure
of
the
success
of
the
court
in
insuring
against
reconviction?
To
claim
that
the
effect
of
fining
every
first
offender
is
measured
by
reviewing
those
who
were
fined
is
to
assume
that
those
who
were
chosen
for
probation
because
it
was
thought
expedient,
would
have
responded
to
a
fine
as
did
those
who
were,
in
fact.
selected
for
fining.
Those
who
have
to
make
decisions
’in
court
and
those
who
have
to
guide
the
decision-makers
have,
in
their
saner
moments,
never
claimed
infallibility.
It
seems
today
that
few
are
prepared
to
claim
even
a
small
measure
of
&dquo;success&dquo;.
A
probation
officer
writing
recently
expressed
a
longing
for
greater
assurance:
&dquo;The
value
of
evolving
a
more
exact
method
of
predicting
likely
response
to
To continue reading
Request your trial