Abstract
This article questions some probation standards which have, until now, been accepted largely without question and without an evaluation of how effective they actually are when applied. In examining some of the assumptions on which these standards and practices are based, the author suggests alternative ways of look ing at the selection of disposition, the presentence investigation, the concept of probation as treatment, caseload standards, and the educational qualifications of probation personnel.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
