Essay on Supervision of probationer

Essay on Supervision of probationer

The strategies adopted by a probation officer for supervision include his meeting the probationer in his own home without being constrained by the excessive inhibitions of bureaucracy.

It also includes tactful interviews with employers and other interested parties, use of various resources in the community such as clinics, psychiatric centres, schools, etc. in order to supplement his own efforts and the keeping of detailed records.

In the event of serious violation of conditions of probation release, he must be prepared to assume the role of a policeman and act promptly and fearlessly in the enforcement of the law. He thus strives to understand the ‘street subculture’ and to meet his ‘client’ on his terms. Court orders are also translated by him to the probationer.

Experimental relationships, not structured to serve court’s interests alone, complicate the management of a probation officer’s role but role flexibility helps a probation officer to reach the probationer successfully.

A probation officer plays an important role in the rehabilitation of the offender. Rehabilitation theory assumes criminality to be primarily the result of a personality defect or emotional disorder in the offender.

Is Probation officer competent to remove this disorder? A survey of the attitudes of a large number of probation officers in regard to their proper tasks shows disagreement as to whether or not their work should entail Psychotherapeutic coping with deep-seated emotional problems.

But the officers generally agree that they are useful in referring probationers for occasional rehabilitation, job placement, marital counseling, welfare services, and legal assistance by some specialised agencies.

They also consider appropriate the advisory and guidance tasks of explaining the disadvantages of continuing associations with disreputable persons, how to apply for a job, how to use spare time, and the wisdom of pursuing education. Their task of informing the courts about the performance of probationers is regarded as vital.

Maximising the probationer’s compliance of conditions laid down by the courts is also a crucial task of a probation officer. Probationers generally comply with the rules only if close surveillance is maintained by a probation officer and violations are not tolerated by him.

According to Caldwell (Criminology, 1956: 447), supervision is neither policing which is negative and repressive in nature, nor coddling which is misguided sentimentality and indulgence. Instead, supervision should be conceived of as case-work in an authoritarian setting.

This is a process in which social services and counseling are used to help the probationer to help himself towards an acceptable adjustment in the community, and it is supported by the authority of the law. It must begin with the establishment of a relationship of trust an. understanding.

This means that the probationer and his family members must be induced to believe that the officer is sympathetic to and interested in him as a person, that he respects his feelings, and that he sincerely wants to help.

But on the other hand, the probationer must also clearly understand that the officer expects him to abide by the conditions imposed by the courts and to assume definite responsibilities in the modification of his own behaviour.

Caldwell (ibid. 448) has also pointed out a few generally accepted^; i principles to which the probation officer can look for guidance:

1. He must be a leader, i.e., he must always be in command of the situation and that he, and not the probationer, should be the one to decide what techniques are needed and how and when they should be used.

2. The probation officer should set a model of behaviour for the probationer by his own conduct. He should not be inconsistent with the values he expccts the probationer to accept.

3. The probation officer should focus on both the environment and the personality traits of the probationer; keeping in mind the fact that criminality is the product of interaction of pressures of both.

4. He should try to seek help from all the available resources in the community-an interested employer, a loyal friend, a helpful neighbour, understanding parents, cooperating relative, a skilfu¹ psychiatrist, a recreation centre, if any-for changing the attitudes o the probationer.

5. He should avoid threatening, ordering, and preaching but should seek the participation of the probationer in the solution of his own problems.

David Dressier (1969) has suggested three techniques’ to be used by the probation officer in his probation work:

(i) Manipulative techniques: to modify both the situation and the personality traits of the probationer.

(ii) Executive techniques to discover and use other resources-medical, legal, educational, social service in the community to supplement his own efforts.

(iii) Guidance, counselling and leadership techniques: to reduce probationer’s conflicts and modify his behaviour patterns.

Besides the above techniques, the following measures are also likely to contribute to the success of probation services.

1. Contact of a probation officer with the probationer in his office, no doubt is necessary, for the purposes of privacy that cannot be secured in the home of the probationer, but frequent contacts in the probationer’s home, school, and work-place are likely to be more useful and expedient.

2. Calling a probationer to office (by the probation officer) and just asking him two or three formal questions after keeping him waiting for hours together makes probationer lose confidence in the probation officer. Unless the probation officer spends an hour or two with the probationer talking to him like a friend, he cannot create in the probationer a sense of participation in the correctional process.

3. The supervision of probationer cannot be conducted satisfactorily without the maintenance of case records and the preparation of regular and adequate reports. The results of pre-sentence investigations have to be carefully maintained and used in the process of controlling the probationer’s environment and personality traits.

Excessive case loads seriously interfere with supervision, maintaining records, and planning the future strategies. If more full-time probation officers cannot be appointed, part-time probation officers may be appointed to have their help in supervision and community contacts. Voluntary workers cannot strengthen probation work.

The total number of probation officers in India is estimated to be 615, of whom 17 per cent are females and 83 per cent are males, and

85 per cent are stipendiary and 15 per cent are honorary (Social Defence, January 1990: 60). Out of 22 states having the probation system, the average work-load pertaining to social investigation per probation officer per year in three states varies between 200 and 250, in three states between 150 and 200, in four states between 100 and 150, in five states between 50 and 100, in three states between 20 and 50, and in four states it is below 20.

The average number of supervision cases (including those under the 1958 Act, Children Act and other laws) per probation officer per year is more than 50 in three states, between 25 and 50 in six states, between 10 and 25 in seven states, and less than 10 in six states.

Rajasthan is one state in India where the probation system has totally deteriorated. In this state, the probation services were merged with the social welfare services in 1972. As a result, out of 26 probation officers in the state (at that time) except six, all other probation officers were redesignated as probation-cum-social welfare or probation-cum-prison welfare officers.

The social welfare work assigned to probation officers was found be so ‘lucrative’ by the probation officers that they devoted 80 per cent of their time to social welfare work and hardly 20 per cent to probation work.

This was bound to affect the functioning of the probation services. The number of cases investigated (under the 1958 Act, Children Act and other laws) and supervised per year started falling steeply from 1980 onwards.

The probation officers in India may be classified into five groups on the basis of the type of interest taken by them and the type of the report they submit to the courts:

(1) constable-type probation officer, who is more concerned with offence than the conduct background;

(2) lawyer-type probation officer, who uses a good deal of legal language;

(3) sociologist-type probation officer, who focuses more on presenting facts about social environment in which the accused person is found living;

(4) psychiatrist-type probation officer, who attempts to analyse personality traits without having the scientific knowledge of psychiatry, e.g., extrovert, emotional, risk-taking, and so forth; and

(5) journalist-type probation officer, who is more interested in using ‘decorative’ language and phrases in the report than presenting actual facts.