FIREARMS SHOULD OFFICERS BE ALLOWED TO CARRY

Firearms - Should probation and parole officers be allowed to carry

Probation and Parole Officers Carrying Arms

Why Arm Officers?

The passage of such legislation in Missouri as well as nationwide is precipitated by several factors ranging from the personal to the organizational to the societal. At the personal level many officers believe that they are working with a more "dangerous" clientele. Often the element of danger is related to regional issues. For example, officers in southwest Missouri are dealing with methamphetamine users. This type of drug user can be quite violent and unpredictable. In urban areas, such as St. Louis and Kansas City, officers have caseloads that cover a variety of offenders. These caseloads include the non-violent drug user as well as the violent drug distributor; but they also include dead beat dads and sex offenders. At the organizational level, probation and parole officers are moving towards a new professionalism modeled after state highway patrol associations. A part of this professionalism is the taking on of

"peace officer" status and a move from "social work" status (Abadinsky 1999). Probation and parole officer associations have endorsed such a change in status with the intent of: 1) having more access to state resources often of which go towards law enforcement; 2) gaining more respect within the state system; and, 3) increased pay by a change in classification (Missouri Probation and Parole Officers Association Newsletter 1997). At the societal level, public opinion, which drives public policy, is currently entrenched in a crime control model. In this context the arming of officers seems only logical.

Context: Balancing Client Needs with Community Protection

Historically, probation and parole officers have been aligned with helping clients reintegrate into the community (Keve 1979). Over time, helping the ex-offender while protecting the community has become an increasingly problematic feature of probation and parole work.

Specifically, an emphasis on control has replaced an emphasis on rehabilitation throughout the criminal justice system (Beckett and Sasson 2000; Irwin and Austin 1994). Nowhere is this more strikingly revealed than in the field of community corrections (Geerken and Hayes 1993; Richards and Jones 1997). An emphasis on control has led to an increase in intermediate sanctions ranging from electronic monitoring to shock incarceration to intensive supervision.

Most of what we know about arming officers comes from survey research and policy analysis (Abadinsky 1999, Brown 1990, Keve 1979, Sigler and McGraw 1985). This work helps to outline the scope and magnitude of changes that arming officers can bring to the dual role expectation of protecting the community and helping the ex-offender. However, what is missing from this outline is a narrative account of being caught up in a life-changing situation driven by historical and political contingencies. Faced with a hostile political climate and an increasingly diverse client population, officers struggle to maintain a balanced sense of self. This self is linked to a role that is distinguished by the statement "We are not cops and we are not social workers, we are PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS" (MPPOA ...