Criminal Justice Leadership Learning to

Criminal Justice Leadership Learning to effectively deal with the media is a sensitive responsibility and not one that most probation officers will likely face under most situations but some criminal cases generate considerable public interest. In cases such as these a probation officer must recognize that his first responsibility is to protect the confidentiality of his report. The offender is entitled to such confidentiality in most jurisdictions both statutorily and ethically.

In addressing the interest of the media as to the contents of the report, the probation officer should balance the concerns of the reporter against the rights of the offender (Farlex, 2002). A careful explanation should be provided to the reporter setting forth this dichotomy. The probation officer should expect some criticism from the reporter. As a strong advocate for victims of crime he can be expected to exploit the probation officer's failure to discuss the reasons for the recommendations as a form of embarrassment or as weak support.

Professional standards, however, require that the probation officer remain staunch in his unwillingness to discuss the matter with the reporter beyond generalized comments that do not address the particulars of the recommendation. The purpose of intermediate sanction programs is to provide a vehicle for situations that demand a stricter sanction than straight probation but not the imposition of incarceration (Burke, 1997). The situation in the instant case is typical of what was intended by the innovators of intermediate sanctioning.

The offender in the case at hand had no prior criminal record of any kind. Additionally, the offender is the victim of long-standing abuse at the hand of the victim. This fact raises emotional issues that provide some understanding as to the reasons behind the actions of the offender but do not justify the action. This form of information is vital to the determination but may not be information that is necessarily proper for distribution to the general public. There are two overriding considerations in this particular case.

The first is the lack of any history of violence by the offender and the second is his having been a nearly life-long victim of abuse at the hand of the victim. Such considerations make him a candidate for sentencing short of actual incarceration. The unique circumstances indicate that this event is an isolated one and that absent the abuse the offender is not likely to repeat the behavior. However, the seriousness of the crime, that is, a homicide, demands that the offender be treated firmly.

The homicide is certainly understandable under the facts of the case but not necessarily justifiable. The discretion of the judge will determine to what extent the extenuating circumstances will affect the offenders sentencing. A recommendation short of incarceration must include some form of intensive supervision for a period of time to ensure that the offender is as he appears to be, that is, a non-violent offender (U.S. Department of Justice, 1997).

Such supervision should also include a period of counseling to ensure that the offender can effectively deal with any residual guilt arising from the homicide and the years of intensive abuse. Specific recommendations to this effect should be incorporated in the report. The period of the recommended sanctions should be of a significant length. The seriousness of the crime cannot be ignored and the fact that there is media interest in the outcome raises the spectrum of criticism.

Although the court must be careful to rise above such restraints public relations cannot be ignored. The report must present.