The Probation Officer's Place in the Penal System
| Date | 01 June 1969 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056901500203 |
| Published date | 01 June 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
51
service
nor
the
local
authority
social
welfare
services
will
ever
have
sufficient
professional
resources
to
deal
ideally
with
all
of
the
problems
that
come
their
way.
The
involvement
of
the
community
in
social
work
activity
is
an
in-
dispensable
prerequisite
to
attempts
to
meet
social
need.
I
think
that
the
probation
service
at
the
present
time
accepts
willingly
the
need
to
recruit
and
involve
volunteers
at
various
levels
of
activity
in
after-care
work
and
also
that
there
is
a
readiness
to
contemplate
using
volunteers
with
other
kinds
of
clients.
This
undertaking
cannot
be
met
adequately
if
the
service
is
not
free
to
speak
in
public,
to
make
policies
public,
and
to
have
the
ear
of
the
community
as
it
does
at
the
present
time.
There
are
a
number
of
other
considerations
arising
from
the
possibility
of
a
change
in
status
but
it
may
be
that
the
recommendations
of
the
Fulton
Committee,
if
implemented,
will
bring
to
an
end
many
of
the
existing
functional
inhibitions.
It
will
be
clear
that
I
see
the
service
as
having
a
viable
and
challenging
future
with
real
opportunities
for
expanding,
not
only
the
range
of
its
activities
but,
through
increased
specialization
by
staff,
the
range
of
available
job
satisfactions.
The
concept
of
a
comprehensive
service
would
enable
it
to
retain
its
independence
and
to
remain
an
attractive
service
to
those
motivated
towards
a
career
in
social
work.
Much
will
depend
upon
our
ability
and
willingness
to
undergo
what
was
previously
described
as
&dquo;desirable
change&dquo;.
THE
PROBATION
OFFICER’S
PLACE
IN
THE
PENAL
SYSTEM
William
Addison,
J.P.
Deputy
Chairman
of
Council,
and
Chairman
of
Executive
Committee,
Magistrates’
Association
FOR
MANY
YEARS
now
the
remedial
and
disciplinary
services
have
been
drawing
closer
to
each
other
in
their
approach
to
the
treatment
of
offenders.
Each
has
come
to
recognise
its
dependence
on
the
other.
Even
so,
it
is
doubtful
whether
either
magistrates
or
probation
officers
fully
appreciate
the
implications
of
the
assumption
by
the
probation
service
of
responsibility
for
prison
welfare
and
after-care.
The
first
decisive
step
towards
integrating
the
probation
service
into
the
penal
system
was
taken
as
long
ago
as
1948,
when
the
Criminal
Justice
Act
of
that
year
provided
that
a
probation
order
should
in
future
follow
con-
viction
of
an
offence.
Before
1948
probation
had
been
in
lieu
of
conviction;
after
1948
it
was
in
lieu
of
sentence,
with
the
threat
of
sentence
remaining
throughout
the
term
of
the
probation
order.
Now
the
service
so
long
and
successfully
associated
with
non-punitive
work
is
required
to
exercise
new
forms
of
supervision
after
sentence
as
well
as
after
conviction,
and
this
at
a
time
when
resentment
against
punishment
is
so
marked
a
characteristic
of
the
age-groups
that
make
the greatest
demands
on
the
service.
This
long-established
identification
of
the
probation
service
with
non-punitive
work
will
inevitably
be
weakened
when
the
care
of
the
younger
age-groups
is
transferred
to
children’s
officers.
Concurrently,
the
authority
of
the
courts
in
association
with
that
service
will
be
proportionately
reduced.
Magistrates
are
frequently
reminded
that
they
are
not
social
workers:
that
their
first
duty
is
the
protection
of
the
law-abiding
public.
They
accept
that
detachment
is
essential
To continue reading
Request your trial