"Sentenced to Social Work?"— An Experiment in Probation Practice in Hampshire (England
| Date | 01 January 1982 |
| Published date | 01 January 1982 |
| Author | J.B. Coker |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X8202600104 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
27
"Sentenced
to
Social
Work?"—
An
Experiment
in
Probation
Practice
in
Hampshire
(England)
J.
B.
Coker
Sentenced
to
Social
Work?
is
the
title
of
a
paper
published
in
1978
by
the
Development
Sub
Committee
of
Region
7 of
the
Chief
Proba-
tion
Officer’s
Conference.l
The
title
is
meant
to
be
eye-catching,
and
is
both
an
epithet
and
an
epitaph
for
a
passing
fashion
in
probation
practice-the
treatment
approach
provokes
the
response
that
people
cannot
be
sentenced
to
social
work,
or
be
helped
against
their
wishes,
and
that
it
is
morally
wrong
to
try
to
do
so.
It
reflects
what
has
been,
and
not
what
is
proposed.
It
also
represents
the
dilemma
of
statutory
helping
organ-
isations,
of
balancing
authority,
bureaucracy
and
the
individual.
The
main
proposal
in
Sentenced
to
Social
Work?
is
that
the
dis-
tinction
between
supervision
and
succour
could
be
acknowledged
with
advantage
to
the
Courts,
the
Probation
Officer,
and
the
people
under
supervision.
Also
it
would
lead
to
more
compatibility
between
care
and
control
and
enhance
the
opportunities
for
a
more
effective
expression
of
these
responsibilities.
In
practice,
the
Courts
when
making
a
probation
order
would,
having
regard
to
all
the
circumstances
including
the
nature
of
the
offence,
and
the
individual’s
total
circumstances,
state
in
open
court
the
frequency
at
which
the
probationer
should
report
to
the
Pro-
bation
Officer,.
The
frequency
of
reporting
would
take
into
account
the
advice
given
to
the
Court
by
the
probation
officer.
This
is
called
the
Primary
Contract.
Failure
to
keep
this
condition
in
the
probation
order
would
lead
to
the
probationer
being
breached
according
to
the
law.
This
would
limit
the
discretion
which
probation
officers
have
exercised
idiosyncratically,
and
emphasise
that
the
primary
contract
is
binding
in
law.
There
is
no
probation
policy
about
breach
action,
and
it
is
left
to
individual
probation
officers
to
do
as
they
wish.
It
may
be
that
if
there
were
consistency
about
breach
action
that
it
would
lead
to
more
confidence
in
the
probation
order,
and
make
it
more
available
for
petty
recidivist
offenders
who
would
otherwise
be
sentenced
to
imprisonment.
Others
have
objected
that
it
will,
in
the
end,
lead
to
more
custody.
This
contract
with
the
Court,
it
is
argued,
would
allow
many
more
people
to
be
put
on
probation.
It
would
also
free
the
probation
officer
to
&dquo;advise,
assist
and
befriend&dquo;
in
a
more
wholesome
and
professional
way,
those
probationers
who
indicate
that
they
would
like
advice
or
assistance.
Common
sense
has
it
&dquo;that
you
can
lead
a
horse
to
the
water
but
you
cannot
make
it
drink&dquo;.
Rarely,
if
ever,
To continue reading
Request your trial