Probation officers are a crucial part of the criminal justice system, as they aid in the supervision of offenders after their release from prisons or when the offenders are serving non-custodial sentences (Bracken, 2015). It is from this perspective that the role of the probation officer cannot be ignored, especially concerning the decisions that they take on their everyday interaction with the offenders. Based on this crucial role, it is expected that probation officers would always maintain high ethical standards when undertaking their respective duties as part of the criminal justice system. The officers are expected to continuously work towards ensuring that their actions can be defined as being ethically and morally upright, not only from the perspective of the law but also to maintaining social justice. The focus of this report is to examine some of the ethical issues that probation officers encounter as part of their everyday role as part of the criminal justice system.
Does his or her discretion come with specific ethical implications?
Discretion is a crucial part of the criminal justice system, as it gives the officers involved in the order the authority of having to determine how a situation ought to be handled based on their judgment of the case. For probation officers, discretion arises when dealing with individual offenders where they are expected to make decisions based on their judgment of whether the offenders are following the laid out sentencing guidelines. However, this raises several ethical implications that are important to understand in seeking to highlight the critical role of the probation officer within the criminal justice system. From an ethical point of view, probation officers are expected to ensure that the decisions that they make regarding the offenders are ethical and moral.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first ethical implication associated with discretion for probation officers is that the officers will always be expected to ensure that the decisions that they make concerning the offenders are anchored in law. Probation officers have a crucial role in ensuring that the choices that they make reflect on what has been prescribed within the context of the law. Although the system provides these officers with discretion touching on the decisions that they ought to make, it is expected that these officers will not go beyond the guidelines highlighted within the law. Consequently, this means that the officers will always seek to ensure that they make proper reference to the law when intending to decide on a specific issue arising during their engagement with individual offenders.
The second ethical implication associated with the provision of discretion for probation officers is that they are expected to maintain a sense of fairness and justice when making decisions that are likely to impact the offenders. It is unethical for probation officers to use the power and authority accorded to them to punish specific offenders with prison sentences or to make threats of using such outcomes if offenders do not engage in particular actions (Whitehead & Woodward, 2017). Although discretion is guaranteed for the probation officers, it is expected that the officers would always maintain a sense of fairness and neutrality when evaluating individual offenders. In case a probation officer abuses his or her authority on the pretence of discretion, he or she would be legally liable, as this goes beyond the bounds that have been set out in seeking to support preference for the individual officers.
What if the probation officer is a distant relation to the probationer?
From a legal and ethical standpoint, probation officers are not expected to supervise their relative, whether close or distant considering that this impacts on their impartiality when making decisions associated with the probationers. Carr, Bauwens, Bosker, Donker, Robinson, Sučić, & Worrall (2015) indicate that probation officers are always expected to remain impartial when evaluating and supervising probationers, as this would mean that the decisions that they make reflect on guidelines laid out as part of the criminal justice system. In cases where probation officers are involved in the supervision and evaluation of their relatives, the ability for these officers to remain impartial is affected significantly. That means that the officers will find themselves making decisions that are likely to favour the probationer without due consideration of the officers' legal and ethical expectations.
As has been noted when evaluating the extent to which probation officers are expected to apply discretion, one of the critical aspects indicated is that the authority of the offices extends beyond their engagement with the offenders. The officers are expected to make decisions that are fair depending on whether the offenders have followed the guidelines that have been set out as part of their probation. If the offenders go against one or more of the instructions, the probation officers have the authority to recommend custodial sentences. When dealing with relatives, the probation officers may not be willing to support custodial sentences irrespective of whether the offenders are in clear violation of the guidelines that have been provided within the criminal justice system as part of probation.
What policies should probation departments maintain to manage ethical issues?
Probation departments have a crucial role to play in managing ethical issues that are likely to impact on the role of probation officers, which may affect their abilities to deliver on their set out objectives. The department is expected to put in place policies that would serve as guidelines for probation officers as part of their role in the criminal justice system. The first policy that the probation departments ought to put in place is that probation officers should not, in any way, supervise or evaluate their family members or persons with close relations. The implementation of this policy would mean that probation officers will be prohibited from engaging with probationers that they are related to, as this brings out a conflict of interest. The departments should always ensure that the officers do not engage with their relatives or close associates, considering that this would go against the policy.
The second policy that probation departments may need to implement is ensuring that the probation officers record every engagement with the offenders to help in determining whether they are impartial in the decisions that they make. The probation officers will be expected to make records of their engagements, which would then be presented as a report to include the decision that the officers may have made with the offenders. The expectation is that this would help establish a clear front through which to ensure that probation officers do not engage in any underhand dealings with the offenders attributed to their authority and discretion. The officers must understand that if they violate these policies, they will be held legally liable, which would result in them going to prison or facing stiff fines.
References
Bracken, D. C. (2015). Probation Practice with Non-Irish National Offenders in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Probation Journal , 12 , 95-112.
Carr, N., Bauwens, A., Bosker, J., Donker, A., Robinson, G., Sučić, I., & Worrall, A. (2015). Picturing probation: Exploring the utility of visual methods in comparative research. European Journal of Probation , 7 (3), 179-200.
Whitehead, J. T., & Woodward, V. (2017). Ethical issues in probation, parole, and community corrections. Justice, Crime, and Ethics , 247-272.
