European journal of probation 

About: European journal of probation is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Prison & Criminal justice. It has an ISSN identifier of 2066-2203. Over the lifetime, 220 publication(s) have been published receiving 2055 citation(s).

What works and what's just?

Abstract: This paper is based on a presentation entitled ‘What Works in Probation’, delivered to an Invitational Conference for Directors of Probation Services in Europe organised by the Council of Europe, the Conference Permanente Europeenne de la Probation and the French Ministry of Justice at the Palais de l’Europe in Strasbourg (26 th -28 th November, 2008). Drawing on a much more extensive and separately published report about the effectiveness of offender supervision (McNeill, 2009), I try to argue here that, despite the apparently technical nature of questions of effectiveness, in fact any considered and critical analysis of the empirical evidence about desistance, rehabilitation and’ what works?’ compel us to consider the moral character and context of criminal justice interventions.

The Good Lives Model in practice : offence pathways and case management

Abstract: During the past decade, the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation (GLM) has gained considerable momentum and popularity as a rehabilitation framework for forensic populations. The GLM is primarily applied by the treatment sector, however very recently, it has been used to generate a structured strengths based approach to case management. The purpose of this paper is multi-layered. First, we present the theory of the GLM, explaining its conceptual underpinnings and in addition, present the results of recent GLM empirical research that found two pathways to offending: direct and indirect. Next, we describe how the GLM conceptual underpinnings, together with the empirical research findings, translate into a structured and meaningful case management approach for community corrections. The process for effective case management of offenders using the GLM is outlined and further, two GLM case management tools are presented and their purpose and application to offender rehabilitation is briefly set out. Finally, we describe the necessary support factors that are vital to the integrity, success and sustainability of this case management approach.

Why Help Offenders? Arguments for Rehabilitation as a Penal Strategy

Abstract: This article considers the variety of theoretical justifications, or moral arguments, which have been put forward to support approaches that can be broadly described as ‘rehabilitative’. The article takes an historical approach, tracing the development of ideas supportive of rehabilitation which begins with the origins of probation in England & Wales, and the Christian mission to ‘save souls’. In the twentieth century context, we consider the emergence of a utilitarian emphasis on maximising decent and productive members of society, subsequently challenged by arguments which emphasised stateobligated or ‘rights-based’ rehabilitation. More recently, utilitarian arguments emphasising rehabilitation’s contribution to public safety and ‘risk reduction’ have risen to the fore. However, we argue that justifications which emphasise offenders, victims and/or communities as beneficiaries of rehabilitation need not be in conflict; nor should probation services have to choose between the broad ranges of stakeholders they are potentially able to serve.

Judicial Rehabilitation and the ‘Clean Bill of Health’ in Criminal Justice

Abstract: Drawing on an important survey of European and Australian policies toward ‘judicial rehabilitation,’ this article makes the following arguments. First, the rehabilitation movement should return to the origins of the word ‘rehabilitation’ and focus at least as much on efforts to remove and relieve ex-prisoner stigma as on treatment and reform efforts. There will be no ‘rehabilitation revolution’ without this. Second, these efforts should involve active, not passive redemption. Rehabilitation processes that require almost a decade or more of ‘crime-free’ behaviour before forgiving an individual for his or her crimes are just and fair, but they miss the point of rehabilitation. Policies should encourage, support and facilitate good behaviour and not just reward it in retrospect. Third, rehabilitation should not just be done, but be ‘seen to be done,’ ideally in a ritualised format. This sends an important message to the individual and wider society. Finally, I argue that it may be better to forgive than forget past crimes. That is, rather than burying past crimes as if they never happened, states should instead acknowledge and formally recognise that people can change, that good people can do bad things, and that all individuals should be able to move on from past convictions.

Surveillance and Confinement: Explaining and Understanding the Experience of Electronically Monitored Curfews

Abstract: Electronic monitoring (EM) is now widely used in Western Europe, but its precise nature as a distinct form of penal sanction remains unclear. Since its advent in the USA in the 1980s, it has been most commonly characterized as a form of confinement and seen as an analogue of imprisonment. The names it had been given - “home detention”, “community custody” and “curfew”, for example - reflect this view. The surveillant aspects of EM have been vaguely acknowledged, but have relied on dubious ocular metaphors, and remain undertheorised. This paper will argue that EM should be understood primarily as a particular form and experience of surveillance, because the precise regulatory regime which it imposes on offenders (including the element of confinement) is only made possible by remote sensing technology, and has collateral effects alongside confinement. The paper concludes by tentatively placing this new, surveillant conceptualization of EM within contemporary debates on the changing nature of penalty.