NCJ Number
188782
Journal
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 40 Issue: 2 Dated: May 2001 Pages: 103-113
Editor(s)
Tony Fowles,
David Wilson
Date Published
May 2001
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This article examined issues raised for the probation service of its roles both as part of the criminal justice system and due process and as a participant in crime prevention partnerships and the potential conflict in the merging of the two roles towards a move to risk control.
Abstract
In both the 1980's and early 1990's the probation service had remodeled itself as a community punishment of intermediate severity for crimes of intermediate gravity. The 1980's saw criminal justice swing from crime control through to rehabilitation, in the direction of due process and fairness. From the Criminal Justice Act of 1993 and on, a resurgence of crime control goals were seen at the expense of due process limits with a growing dominance of the idea of “risk.” The reorienting of the criminal justice system towards risk control resolved the tension in the probation service’s role as part of the penal system and its participation in preventative partnerships. This allowed the probation service to focus on the preventative partnership. The question that arose was the extent to which this involvement in risk management means a loss of contact with the principle of fair punishment. The study acknowledged that if society goes overboard in risk management and does not uphold the rights of all, then the “community” of community justice won’t be an inclusive society. Risk must be approached through the concept of rights. For probation, involvement in both the criminal justice system and in crime prevention partnerships should be on the basis of three fundamental principles: (1) offenders remain part of the community; (2) justice embraces principles of fair punishment as well as principles of risk control; and (3) community justice means commitment to principles of equal freedom and equal respect.