The eradication of crime in society is a continuous process, with many participants. The justice and criminology system provides the mechanism for the identification of individuals who are dangerous for society. The system thereafter provides means for convicts to denounce their unproductive and probably dangerous lifestyles. Once an individual has been found guilty by the court for a crime and sentenced to a non-custodial sanction, or when a person has been released from prison, probation officers come into play. Although the role of probation officer overlaps due to the uniqueness of the different circumstances different offenders are identified, their role is to mainly rehabilitate a felon. The role can take various forms like the essay is aiming to explore.
The primary role of a probation officer is the mandate to ensuring that a person who previously engaged in crime adopts better mannerisms. Although most of a probation officer’s role is more of social work and actively interacting with felons to evaluate their behaviors and motivation, their role in influencing judicial decisions cannot be undermined. Through the application of evidence-based practices (EBP), the reports by probation officers to prosecutors and judges directly influence the decision of the courts. As such, a probation officer could inadvertently be mandated to carry out supervisory roles to the offender. An offender is obliged to adhere to the probation program principles that have been set out, and that being the central role of a probation officer, the officer’s roles interplays with that of law enforcement. The officers are required to ensure that offenders are dutiful in attending their sessions, and the measures that have to be adhered to have to be firmly reinforced. Recidivism rates are likely to increase if probation officers are not firm with ensuring that offenders follow procedures aimed at improving their behavior such as Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and participating in community work.
The risk-need responsivity model is an impartial process whereby the risk factor of an offender can be exhaustively determined. By evaluating the circumstances in which certain crimes took place, it can be easy to identify what caused an individual to partake in an offense. For instance, an individual from a dysfunctional family found guilty of stealing could be more tenable unlike for an individual who violently robs other people despite being from a compact family. The court system under probation officers could resort to offering mental care to such individuals and setting them on the right trajectory as they attempt to discover themselves since their childhood growth environment could not allow. Low-risk individuals are likely to benefit most from parole services unlike for individuals with severe mental disorders. Once probation officers have identified the circumstances and the disposition of an offender, such information would be useful in identifying the risk factor and therefore provide the most appropriate solution that would be best suited for the felons.
Conclusion
The role of probation and parole officers within the justice system cannot be undermined especially in the reduction of recidivism rates among offenders. When probation officers have been able to clearly identify the circumstances of the crime and the temperament of offenders, rehabilitation attempts are likely to be successful unlike in the situations where offenders are convicted, only to be released without being made to understand how they may rectify their behavior by professional counselors. The rapport created between offenders and probation officers ought to be a central element of the criminal justice system. Offenders are likely to have engaged in crime due to ignorance and recidivism is likely to occur if a previously convicted felon is not thoroughly appraised in order to address the circumstances which prompted the first occurrence of crime.