PROBATION. The principle on which the probation sys tem is based originated in, and was a development of, the idea of the suspended sentence. Under this the accused person was ad judged to be guilty and his sentence determined upon, but it re mained suspended, to be eventually cancelled, if the accused made a serious effort in the meantime to redeem his character. Some countries still retain this practice, but it is obvious that its effi cacy must depend upon the reliability of the information fur nished as to the conduct of the accused during the period of suspension. In order to provide this information it was essential to appoint some person who would be in a position to supply it accurately, and it soon became the function of this official, not only to keep observation, but to give advice, encouragement and assistance to those over whom he exercised supervision. These are precisely the duties which a probation officer now fulfils.
The credit for the earliest creation of these officers would ap pear to rest with the principal authorities of Boston, U.S.A., who appointed a number of them in the year 1878. The principle received legislative recognition in England in 1887, when the First Offenders Act became law. The value of the system was soon completely demonstrated. The Probation of Offenders Act of 1907 in Great Britain permitted the use of probation, not in the case of first offenders only, but also in that of persons who had been previously convicted, provided the circumstances justified such a course.
It is greatly to the credit of the Police Court Mission that its managers should have at once provided the required agents by offering their own missionaries for this purpose. The offer was accepted, and in very many provincial and in all the metropolitan police courts of Great Britain, the missionaries of the society are appointed to act as probation officers. In London, and a few other cities, special probation officers are appointed to devote themselves solely to the children's courts. In the metropolis these officers are appointed and paid directly by the Home Office, and are subject to no religious tests. A uniformity of system in this respect would seem to be ultimately necessary. There is a Na tional Association of Probation Officers which exists to safeguard the interests of its members and to strengthen and standardize the system.
Under the act of 1907 the appointment of probation officers was not compulsory and, as many districts made inadequate pro vision, and some no provision at all, full advantage was not taken by the act. This defect has now been remedied by the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, which renders obligatory the appointment of a probation committee for every probation area. This area may be either that comprised in the jurisdiction of a single petty-ses sional court, or a combined area of several such courts, approved by the secretary of State.
It is impossible at present to give statistics, of any real value, of the success of probation, but that it has been successful to an extraordinary degree is unquestionable. It would, however, be most helpful if a uniform test of "success" or "failure" could be adopted as applicable to each individual case. If the test used is only good behaviour during the probation period, the number of successes would, of course, be very much greater than if the period were extended to a term of years after the order had ceased. The terms "success" and "failure" likewise need definition.
A single relapse does not necessarily imply failure.
Probation work amongst children (see JUVENILE OFFENDERS) differs materially from that amongst adults and is of even greater importance. It is essential that a child offender should, at first, be under very careful supervision ; that his mental, physical and psychological characteristics should receive the closest study; that most friendly relations should be established between the parents and the probation officer ; that the child should be brought in touch with outside agencies, such as boy scouts, clubs, etc., and that he should feel that in his own officer he has a real friend to whom he can always look for advice, sympathy and help. About half the number of children charged before the juvenile courts are now placed on probation. Where, however, this fails, there should be no hesitation on the part of the probation officer in bringing the child again before the court in order that he may be sent to a certified school. (W. C. HA.) United States.—Every State in the union now has probation in more or less successful operation. The results obtained vary and are dependent largely upon whether trained probation officers are employed and upon whether these officers have assigned to them more cases than can be handled at one time with efficiency. Fifty cases are generally considered a maximum for a single officer. Rural communities are generally backward in pro viding probation officers. Generally speaking, however, the re sults of probation, as a principle, have been excellent. Appar ently 75 to 85% of probationers do well while subject to pro bation, according to official reports. Adequate statistics are not available on the extent to which further relapses occur after the probationary period ends, but studies made seem to show that only a negligible portion of those who do well under probation subsequently succumb to criminal tendencies.
Probation has more than justified its value as an instrumen tality of preventive penology and has received increased public approval. In this regard it is in marked contrast with parole with which it is closely related and with which it should not be con fused. Probation, as stated, is an outgrowth of the suspended sentence and is a substitute for punishment, while parole is a part of penal discipline, akin to probation in its methods, to be employed after punishment is partly accomplished. Probation has obviously the larger chance of success.
In the first place, probation cases are generally those in which the prospect of social rehabilitation is more hopeful. Its cases, moreover, are more likely to co-operate with probation officers' services with a gratitude born of a consciousness of punishment avoided rather than, as in the case of those paroled, resentful in a present recollection of punishment endured. As a social agency in human reformation, probation still has great undeveloped possi bilities and constitutes one of the great experimental fields for all the forces which deal with the understanding and prevention of crime.