About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

14 Fed. Probation 41 (1950)
The Future of Federal Probation

handle is hein.journals/fedpro14 and id is 111 raw text is: The Future of Federal Probation By HENRY P. CHANDLER Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts T DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY that there will be any substantial change in the present functions of federal probation officers in the next 25 years. These functions are principally presentence in- vestigation and the supervision of persons on pro- bation and parole. Presentence Investigation and Supervision In the beginning federal probation officers were concerned almost exclusively with the supervision of persons on probation and parole. The courts soon found, however, that it was helpful to them in deciding what sentence to impose, to have full information from the probation officers concern- ing the personality and associations of the of- fenders and an estimate of their capacity for re- habilitation. So the courts came to require pre- sentence investigations and reports in a large proportion of the cases of conviction of crime. Rule 32c of the Rules of Criminal Procedure re- quires this unless the court otherwise directs. In the fiscal year 1949 a total of 23,704 investigations were made, of which 14,921 were presentence in- vestigations, 7,261 were investigations of civilian prisoners preliminary to their parole from prison, and 1,522 were similar investigations for the Army for which the probation officers serve as parole agents. The number of persons under supervision in the same year was 29,726, of whom 21,557 were probationers, 4,555 were parolees, 2,550 were persons on conditional release, and 1,064 were pa- rolees from the Army. Relation of Probation Officers to the Courts in Presentence Investigations There is a substantial difference between the position of probation officers in presentence in- vestigations and in supervision. In making pre- sentence investigations they assemble and present the facts pertinent to the offender for the consider- ation of the court. Some courts desire a recom- mendation of action from the probation officers and some do not. In either case the task calls for a high degree of intelligence on the part of the probation officers in appraising the facts and pre- senting them in clear, logical, and balanced form. But the responsibility is in the court. Comparative Independence of Probation Officers in Supervision In supervision on the other hand, the responsi- bility for planning and action is in the probation officers, with only an occasional reference to the court or board of parole. The probation officers are really the treatment agents for the persons committed to them, just as the prisons, civil or military, are the agencies for treatment of the offenders in their custody. Generally after a court puts a person on probation he expects the proba- tion officer to take charge of the case and conduct it. The probation officer is largely independent and thrown pretty much on his own resources. It is only when there is a substantial violation of the probation and the question arises whether it should be revoked, that the case again comes before the court. Likewise cases of persons on parole, whether civil or military, are in the hands of the probation officers to be handled according to their judgment, up to the point of substantial breach of the terms of parole. It does not seem likely that this condition will change. Dual Duty of Probation Officers To Supervise Probationers and Parolees Another feature of federal probation that seems almost certain to continue is the dual duty of the officers to supervise for the courts persons on pro- bation, and for the board of parole and the Army, paroled prisoners. A generation ago correctional authorities were not inclined to put the supervision of probationers and parolees in the same persons. They were apprehensive that if this was done the stigma of prison would attach to the proba- tioners and the work with them would be less ef- fective. There may still be some opinion of this nature which is not without reason. But in the Federal Government in any event, economy makes it necessary to provide in many districts for the supervision of probationers and parolees by the same officers. This is particularly true in districts of large area and sparse population. It would involve unnecessary expense to have two sets

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most