Reflections from Stockholm
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056501100308 |
| Published date | 01 September 1965 |
| Date | 01 September 1965 |
| Author | Frank Dawtry |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
110
REFLECTIONS
FROM
STOCKHOLM
Frank
Dawtry
THE
UNITED
NATIONS
CONGRESS
on
the
Prevention
of
Crime
and
the
Treatment
of
Offenders,
held
in
Stockholm
in
August,
devoted
two
days
to
the
discussion
of
probation,
while
probation
was
of
course
frequently
referred
to
in
other
discussions
of
preventive
and
treatment
measures.
There
was
a
common
basis
of
agreement
on
the
importance
of
treating
offenders
within
the
community,
but
considerable
variation
of
ideas
about
the
best
way
to
do
this.
The
British
(and
American)
conception
of
probation
is
that
of
a
flexible
method
of
treat-
ment
in
itself,
used
as a
clear
alternative
to
other
methods
of
dealing
with
offenders.
In
several
European
countries
it
is
linked
with
the
suspended
sentence;
the
methods
used
by
the
probation
officer
might
be
the
same
as
in
Britain
but
the
specified
sentence
remains
in
the
background
as
a
sanction.
In
the
Scan-
dinavian
countries
probation
is
usually
a
form
of
supervision
following
institu-
tional
treatment-the
period
in
an
institution
may
be
indefinite
or
it
may
be
limited
by
the
court,
but
the
sentence
includes
the
following
period
of
proba-
tionary
supervision,
which
is
usually
fairly
long.
In
some
cases
the
time
spent
in
an
institution
is
to
be
regarded
only
as
a
preparation
for
probation
and
not
as
a
punitive
measure.
Testing
and
social
enquiries
are
made
during
the
period
in
custody
while
an
opportunity
is
provided
for
some
limited
industrial
and
educational
training
preparatory
to
the
return
to
society
under
the
supervision
of
a
probation
officer.
The
Congress
showed
quite
clearly
that
the
extension
of
probation
has
been
hampered
by
an
insufficient
realisation
on
the
part
of
the
public
that
this
method
is
in
fact
an
efficient
means
of
preventing
crime,
but
the
final
report
of
the
section
dealing
with
probation,
presented
to
and
accepted
by
the
Congress
as
a
whole,
affirmed
that
probation
provides
sufficient
safeguards
for
the
protection
of
society
while
retaining
the
unique
quality
of
adaptability
to
individual
needs.
&dquo;Thus
it
may
be
regarded
as
a
major
element
in
penal
policy....&dquo;
Probation,
as
the
Superintendent
of
Probation
and
Parole
from
the
Ministry
of
Justice
in
Holland
stated,
must
be
based
on
the
theory
that
the
offender
is
not
only
an
offender
but
also
a
member
of
society;
and
Dr.
Wahl
of
Germany
emphasised
that
it
must
be
an
individual
matter
in
which
the
power
to
impose
conditions
enables
the
court
to
regulate
the
life
of
an
individual
for
a
long
time
-help
from
the
law
in
this
way
helps
the
offender
to
carry
out
his
duty.
Nevertheless,
the
feeling
dies
hard
that
probation
is
too
lenient
or
that
it
should
be
used
only
for
young
or
less
serious
offenders.
To
meet
this
there
may
be
pressure,
as
was
obvious
in
the
Congress,
to
combine
a
process
called
proba-
tion
with
mild
deterrents
and
we
in
Britain
may
be
challenged
to
re-think-~r
at
least
to
defend-our
traditional
conception
of
probation.
We
are
familiar
with
the
suggestion
that
it
might
be
combined
with
an
attendance
centre
or
detention
centre
order,
though
it
is
argued
that
if
an
offender
needs
such
treatment
he
cannot
also
and
simultaneously
be
regarded
as
suitable
for
probation.
But
a
detention
centre
order
is
now
followed
by
a
period
of
statutory
after-care
which
the
Scandinavians
would
find
difficult
to
distinguish
from
probation.
We
might
more
seriously
consider
linking
probation
with
a
fine.
Can
we
conceive
of
it
being
part
of
a
process
involving
some
stricter
discipline?
The
demand
for
institutional
treatment
to
be
used
less,
and
as
a
last
resort,
must
mean
that
probation,
amongst
other
things,
should
be
used
more--can
a
To continue reading
Request your trial