Notes on the Supervision of the probation and parole

Notes on the Supervision of the probation and parole

Our other concern is with Subsection 3 of Section 4 of the Act regarding placing probationers on supervision and the suggestions of some Probation officers that no offender is placed on probation without supervision and that Section 4 of the Probation Act be amended.

The above referred Subsection provides that the court may pass orders for the supervision of the offender by a probation officer in the interest of the offender and public, i.e., all probationers need not be kept under probation officers’ supervision.

Some probation officers hold the view that probation not involving supervision is no probation at all and as such all probationers must be placed under supervision. The crucial questions about supervision are: how much supervision do offenders on probation now receive, and how much do they need?

What are the techniques of supervision now in use and what effects have they on different types of probationers? These questions must be answered before we are in a position to say that it is probation with supervision rather than probation without supervision which is responsible for the apparently high effectiveness of probation.

The fundamental purpose of supervision is to help the offender in creating within himself the will and ability to employ his capacities for achieving his goals without being in serious conflict with the interests of other persons and society.

Here there is probably an assumption that earlier the person was not assisted by his parents, kith and kin and peers, etc., in developing this will. This assumption is surely not correct.

All offenders do not commit crimes only because of socialisation defects. Many indulge in deviant acts due to force of circumstances. But assuming that offender’s crime was due to lack of proper counseling, could it be said that probation officer will definitely give him the required counsel, supervision and guidance?

Are all probation officers adequately trained to be counselors and are they committed to their occupational roles? Assuming that they are, is it not known that with the present caseload, a probation officer hardly gets about two hours or less per month of personal counseling time with each client?

Could it be definitely contended that according to the provisions of the Act, all probation officers regularly visit probationers in their home surroundings, and where appropriate, their occupational environment, in order to see that the progress made by the probationers and the difficulties, if any, are met with by them satisfactorily?

The standard probation case-load of a probation officer in India is much less in comparison to that in England and the United States. In several states in India, the position is of course not satisfactory and probation officers have high work-load.

The number of probation cases under supervision at any one time is not, however an accurate measure of the probation officer’s workload since he has also to perform the duty of pre-sentence investigation of offenders’ social background and submit report to the courts. Moreover, administrative duties of probation officers have also increased in recent years.

The result is that in many cases, the supervision of offenders on probation occupies only a fraction of the probation officer’s time. A probation officer, with a high caseload, thus spends very little time per case per month; and, in many cases, the amount of contact between probationer and probation officer is minimal.

It is true that all probationers do not require equal attention and that some need more supervision than others.

Nevertheless, keeping in mind the ‘minimum’ supervision needed by probationers, the success of probation and the development of non-criminal orientations can easily be attributed to ‘intensive’ supervision only. Without normal or even minimum supervision, the probation officer cannot act as a proper guide and counselor for a probationer.

Assuming that he does, it is known that a probation officer is supposed to secure for the probationer training facilities, employment opportunities and financial aid. In the present circumstances, is the probation officer really able to get him a job? Can he give him financial assistance?

Those people who suggest that no offenders be released on probation without supervision are in fact advocates of ‘get tough’ approach to crime. These advocates seem to forget that overzealous enforcement methods could well signal a serious curtailment of the individual liberties that we so highly prize. This is not to express sympathy for an offender but simply to restate what should be a governing tenet of democratic justice.

In a complex, heterogeneous, rapidly changing, urbanised and largely individualistic society in which individual’s dependence on secondary groups is increasing day by day for the satisfaction and fulfilment of his varied needs, the traditional agencies of socialisation often find themselves hard put to maintaining influence on the young.

At the same time, there is some confusion as to what is desirable and what is undesirable what crime-encouraging values are and what are crime-preventive values.

In such a situation, to have a right attitude towards the violators of the so-called social values and recommend regular visits of probationers to probation officers’ office at fixed intervals and function under their guidance for a period of not less than one year would definitely have deleterious effects on the probationers’ efforts of adjusting themselves in society.

From all this it appears that the majority of probationers could be dealt with effectively by measures not involving supervision. Some offenders definitely are able to benefit more from supervision but the majority probably do not need.

In, particular, offenders who are not ‘risks’ can well be dealt with by Probation without supervision. Let us, therefore, not indulge in over legislating because it has its own perils. Seen from an operational Point of view, probation has to be quite different from its ideal conception. Subsection 3 of Section 4, thus, does not need any amendment.