Compulsory Persuasion in Probation History

Abstract

What follows in this chapter is a series of reflections on the probation service’s function of supervising people within a legal framework which requires them to comply with certain conditions in exchange for escaping the stigma of a criminal conviction or, in some cases, prison — what Fielding (1984: 3) describes as ‘a role which is gravely problematic in its combination of contradictory functions’. For most of its history, the probation service has cherished a social work identity, but what Raynor (1978) has described as ‘compulsory persuasion’ and others as ‘authoritative and compulsory power’ (Howard Association 1881: 4) has ever hovered in the background like the ghost of Banquo. It was there when Matthew Davenport Hill applied the concept of recognizance, when John Augustus bailed his first drunkard, and when the first probation officers began to advise, assist and befriend people in the United Kingdom. The driving motivation might always have been to help, but the largely unspoken dilemma has always been about how to persuade people to submit to the authority inherent in the probation contract and, perhaps more importantly, to participate in the helping process on offer. In his account of work with a man with a drink problem, Thomas Holmes (1900: 210), the police court missionary, set out his approach:

At night I waited for him in his own room. He returned one morning about two, when I quickly took possession of him. About four o’clock he insisted on going out, but I had locked the door, so he had to remain. The next day I cut short his debauch, by taking him home with me, and putting him under lock and key. This he was most indignant about, and questioned my right to make a prisoner of him. I told him might was right, and that he had got to remain.