Nathan Monk

In this article we are curious to illustrate and contrast some of the ways in which domestic violence has been managed over time and place. To develop this contrast we compare recent (primarily Australian) western material with historical examples taken from early modern England. The focus of this discussion will be how intervention into domestic violence has shifted from a decidedly community-based to an authority-based system of monitoring social relations. We argue, in seeing many respects of this trend reversed, that there are good reasons for a more localized and community-based treatment of Domestic Violence.

Nils Christie famously described conflicts as “property”. In this essay, it is argued that reintegration is also “property” owned by communities and not resettlement agencies.
Although the interest in resettlement among criminal justice agencies in recent years is to be welcomed, it should be remembered that the actual work of re-integration is done by ex-offenders, their families and other members of their communities. The basic components of a “restorative” model of re-integration are outlined.

This paper questions the notion that problem drug use is essentially a physiological medical problem that requires coercive treatment, from which success is measured by way of drug testing to determine the abstinence from the drug. The article argues that the causes and solutions to problem drug use are as much more to do with socio-economic factors than physiological or psychological factors. In particular it explores the connections between the emergence and sudden rise in problematic drug use that occurred across the UK in the mid 1980s, with deindustrialisation and the decline of opportunities for unskilled non academic young people. Further the paper critically examines the notion of the ‘problem drug user’, in particular how those identified and labelled, are perceived and treated by wider society, and how this adversely impacts upon drug rehabilitation and social integration.

This article examines the centrality of risk both within the Government’s new proposals to tackle offending behaviour (Home Office 2004) and within the professional practice of probation officers within a large metropolitan area. The pre-occupation of the government with the potential dangerousness of mentally disordered offenders also provided a focus to this article. In order to explore these issues a small scale research project was undertaken into the use of eOASys as a risk assessment tool and whether it enabled practitioners to effectively identify those offenders who may potentially have mental health problems. The research also focused on whether this led to more effective and sensitive management of mentally disordered offenders and assisted practitioners to reduce their risk of re-offending and risk of harm to themselves or others.

The key findings include the need for more detailed eOASys assessments; the importance of a consistent and sustained relationships between offender and probation officer to aid assessments; cases with incomplete eOASys assessments were the cases with little supplementary information and lacked the detailed analysis of past information contained in case records; issues of race and gender; and stereotyping of mental health issues.

Drug-using offenders have come to be a special focus for policy concerns within community justice. A more punitive penal climate and narrow conception of social exclusion may have created a policy environment that undermines the growth of treatment opportunities now available. The emphasis upon coercion in community justice treatment responses is questioned as it may inadvertently aggravate broader pressures towards custody within the sentencing climate. Since such penal environments aggravate factors associated with social exclusion it is argued that this may undermine rather than enhance individual motivation for change. Research evidence on drug treatment is examined and a case study from probation practice described. The complexities of both suggest that the current policy direction may need to do more to provide treatment when needed and enhance social networks rather than coerce change. This would complement rather than undermine approaches to practice that build on factors related to desistance and the existing resilience found in drug users’ lives.

This article considers recent changes to the probation service, including ‘what works’, desistance, NOMS and contestability. It argues that there is need to publicise the positive work undertaken by probation staff. In this respect the recent independent report by Lord Coulsfield is mentioned and its recommendations to highlight the use of community sentences. Those people interested in the continuance of a professional service cannot afford to be passive but need instead to engage in debate on what probation should consist of, other than punishing offenders.