Retirement for Women
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058202900106 |
| Date | 01 March 1982 |
| Author | Elizabeth E.N. Williams |
| Published date | 01 March 1982 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
18
system
to
cope
with
crime.
The
system
needs
to
reorient
its
perspective.
The
Quixotic
quest
for
methods
of
rehabili-
tating
criminals
should
be
set
aside.
In
its
place
we
should
be
seeking
to
dis-
cover
swifter
and
surer
methods
of
punishment
through
just
retribution.
REFERENCES
1.
CLARK,
Ramsey.
Crime
in
America,
New
York:
Simon
and
Schuster,
1970,
p
220.
2.
MENNINGUR,
Karl.
The
Crime
of
Punishment,
New
York:
Viking
Press,
1969,
pp
9
and
13.
3.
New
York
Times,
Sept
5,
1977.
4.
PORAC
News,
December,
1977.
5.
PORAC
News,
December,
1977.
6.
WILSON,
James
Q.
Thinking
About
Crime,
New
York:
Vintage
Books,
1977,
p
189.
7.
VAN
DEN
HAAG,
Ernest.
Punishing
Criminals,
New
York:
Basic
Books,
1975,
pp
190-91.
8.
EHRLICH,
Isaac.
"Participation
in
Illegitimate
Activities:
A
Theoretical
Investigation",
The
Journal
of
Political
Economy,
May/June,
1973.
9.
Wall
Street
Journal,
March
6,
1979.
10.
For
an
excellent
analysis
of
the
morality
of
the
death
penalty
see
BERNS,
Walter.
For
Capital
Punishment:
Crime
and
the
Morality
of
the
Death
Penalty,
New
York:
Basic
Books,
1979.
11.
Los
Angeles
Times,
Jan
16,
1979.
12.
New
York
Times,
Aug
26,
1973.
Retirement
for
Women
Dear
Sir,
ELIZABETH
E.
N.
WILLIAMS
High
Wycombe
-
----
~__,
~
~ z
Having
anticipated
that
in
common
with
contemporaries
and
friends
in
other
Establishment
services
I
would
automatically
be
retired
at
the
age
of
60,
and
having
reached
the
time
when
I
feel
that
it
would
be
pleasant
to
have
some
time
for
myself
instead
of
forever
considering
others,
I
was
looking
for-
ward
to
the
day,
some
15
months
ahead,
when
I
would
reach
that
magic
age,
I
suffered
a
rude
shock
when
I
learned
that
our
retirement
age
is
now
65.
On
asking
around,
I
discover
that
my
col-
leagues,
male and
female,
also
thought
that
retirement
for
women
probation
officers
was
60,
and
they
too
were
gear-
ing
their
working
lives
with
that
in
mind.
And
then,
on
reading
the
resolu-
tions
for
the
AGM,
I
learn
that
the
Association
is
concerned
at
the
lack
of
jobs
available
for
newly
qualified
proba-
tion
officers-so
have
we
here
lack
of
communication
and
co-ordination?
If
(as
seems
to
me
to
be
the
case
now)
no
store
is
set
on
the
knowledge
gained
by
the
experience
of
the
long-
serving
officers,
with
the
more
newly
qualified
being
selected
for
jobs
up
the
hierarchy
ladder,
it
seems
to
me
that
there
is
something
to
be
said
for
for-
mulating
a
policy
for
encouraging
those
that
have
given
decades
to
the
Service
to
leave
at
age
60
with
full
superannuation
and
pension
to
make
way
for
the
young-
sters,
and
I
am
wondering
if
NAPO
is
aware
of
this
situation
and
whether
it
is
prepared
to
do
anything
about
it?
Yours
faithfully,
Pete
Bowyer,
Assistant
Gen
Secretary,
NAPO,
answers
this
query:
The
confusion
may
have
arisen
from
assum-
ing
that
the
retirement
age
in
the
local
government
superannuation
scheme
is
the
same
as
for
the
state
pension
scheme.
This
is
not
the
case.
For
both
men
and
women
the
age
of
compulsory
retirement
in
the
local
government
scheme
is
65.
It
is
possible
to
retire
at
any
time
from
age
60,
if
you
have
completed
25
years
service.
Maximum
pension
entitlement
can
only
be
obtained
after
40
years
service
which
means
that,
given
the
minimum
age
to
enter
the
probation
service
is
22,
it
is
not
possible
to
retire
at
60
on
full
pension.
Many
probation
officers
enter
the
service
at
a
later
age
than
this
and
thus
are
even
more
unlikely,
unless
their
previous
employment
was
in
local
government,
to
be
in
a
position
to
retire
on
full
pension
before
attaining
65
years
of
age.
A
recent
resolution
committed
NAPO
to
securing
a
reduction
of
the
retirement
age
to
60
with
full
pension
rights
(with
an
adjustment
to
eliminate
the
discriminatory
effects
upon
male
probation
officers
of
delayed
benefits
from
the
state
scheme).
The
difficulties
for
NAPO
in
securing
major
modifications
of
a
scheme
of
which
proba-
tion
officers
are
only
a
tiny
part
are
con-
siderable.
A
concern
for
the
plight
both
of
many
officers
nearing
retirement
with
less
than
full
pension
entitlement
and
unemployed
probation
officer,
has
led
NAPO
to
explore
the
possibility
of
a
formal
early
retirement
scheme
which
would
enhance,
at
the
expense
of
the
employer,
the
number
of
years
that
would
count
for
pension
pur-
poses.
Discussions
are
still
proceeding
on
this
possibility.
To continue reading
Request your trial