Do probation officers collude with perpetrators' denial or minimisation of responsibility? Anne McColl of Kent Probation Service and Rosalind Hargreaves, Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Kent, outline their examination of a sample of court reports to illuminate the basis of understanding between offender and reporter.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Domindli L., Gender, Sex Offenders and Probation Practice, Novata Press , 1991.
2.
Kelly L., Surviving Sexual Violence, Polity Press, 1988
3.
Scully D. , Understanding Sexual Violence: A Study of Convicted Rapists, Harper Collins Academic, 1990
4.
Sykes G.M. and Matza D., 'Techniques of neutralization. a theory of delinquency', American Sociological Review, 22, 664-70, 1957.
5.
Scully D., op. cit
6.
Taylor L., 'The significance and interpretation of replies to motivational questions the case of sex offenders', Sociology, 6, 23-39, 1972.
7.
Whitehouse P. , 'Race, Bias and Social Enquiry Reports', Probation Journal, 30:2, 1983;
8.
Eaton M.Justke for Women? Women, Court and Social Control, Open University Press, 1986.
9.
Crawford D.A. , 'Treatment Approaches with Pedophiles', in Cook M. and Howells K. (Eds), Adult Sexual Interest in Children, Academic Press, 1921.
10.
Stone N., 'Probation in the 1990s: No Escaping Nemesis?', in Williams B. and Senior P. (Eds), Probation Practice After the Criminal Justice Act 1991, Sheffield, 1992.
