they have undoubtedly an important place in the probation procedure. However, great care should be exercised both in the imposition and in the enforcement of such terms that injustice may be avoided. The prevailing emphasis on conditions of this nature, with a resultant lack of development of probation conditions which relate to the general conduct of the probationer and the environmental factors affecting him, is to be regretted. This state of affairs may be explained in some measure by the fact that as a whole probation has developed sporadically and without direction or coordination. As a result statutes set up few definite behavior standards for probationers. It is true, of course, that conditions of this nature can be better determined by judges dealing with the individual cases than by legislatures attempting to decide upon a system of conditions which will meet the needs of a majority of hypothetical defendants. more. However, there is evidence that it is the tendency of most judges to impose merely the statutory strictures and no This happens, among other reasons, because the great pressure of court business militates against any considerable individualization of treatment and because courts hesitate to risk possible reversals on appeal of unusual terms. The relative scarcity of appellate court decisions on the question of proper conditions is some evidence of the fact that where any statutory standards have been set up at all, trial courts have been content to go no further in the matter of prescribing conditions than the statutes suggest. Conditions, apart from those of a pecuniary nature, which occur in the statutes with any degree of regularity from State to State, are generally those which outline the probationer's duties with regard to reporting, remaining within the jurisdiction, and maintaining steady employment. There are scattered references to the probationer's duty to abstain from intoxicants, avoid bad company, keep reasonable hours, or undergo medical treatment as directed. However, there is no uniformity of statutory standards of behavior. Wise provisions with reference to the treatment of offenders infected with venereal disease have been adopted in only four States-Connecticut, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont. On the whole, the problem as to the conditions which should be imposed upon probationers has been sadly neglected. It has aroused less controversy and comment than almost any other aspect of probation work, although obviously an important phase of probation procedure. Probation conditions prove themselves to be of the greatest utility when they are designed to meet the particular needs of individual cases. The theory of an individualization of justice is one of the underlying tenets of the probation system. For this reason a policy of fixing by legis lative act terms to meet all cases which may conceivably arise will prove to be impractical, inadequate, and often injurious. Most of the States in fact have left the determination of conditions largely to the discretion of their courts. This is as it should be since the court, aided by the probation officer, is closer to the circumstances of the individual offender than the legislature can ever be. Whether courts have assumed their duty to fix special conditions to meet the requirements of each case is doubtful. Certainly there is some basis for the assumption that courts most often discharge this duty with nothing more than an injunction that the defendant observe the law and be of good behavior. As stated above, statutes have named some terms which the court may impose in its discretion, but the tendency has been to apply the enumerated conditions in toto, omitting only those which are most obviously inapplicable. If probation statutes left the matter of conditions to the court's discretion, but in addition imposed an affirmative duty on the court to prescribe conditions of some individuality and applicability to the peculiar circumstances of each case, an improvement in this aspect of probation work might result. CHAPTER VIII SUPERVISION OF ADULT PROBATIONERS INTRODUCTION Probation conditions are imposed primarily to furnish a means of controlling the offenders' conduct during the period they remain in probationary custody. Observance of conditions should be the least which courts and officers expect in the way of good conduct. Whether or not the probationary period becomes anything more than a mere interim of law observance and minimum good behavior will depend upon the degree and quality of the supervision which the probation officers exercise over those committed to their care. In a system like probation where each phase of the process of treatment exerts significant influence upon the phases which follow, it is perhaps inaccurate to point to any one procedure as being more important to the final effectiveness of the system than any other. The type of administration and the selection of personnel will in large measure determine the adequacy of the investigation by means of which probationers are chosen. And this choice of those to whom supervision is to be applied predetermines in large measure what the supervision will accomplish. For these reasons, the supervisory process cannot, without qualification, be termed the most important element in probation. Certainly, however, it is the penultimate goal toward which the preceding processes look. Supervision will be materially handicapped if its proper foundation in the discriminating selection of offenders for treatment has not been laid. Conversely, investigation becomes futile in the face of loose and perfunctory supervision. For, despite the close interrelation of all the processes of probation treatment and the reciprocal effect which they exert upon one another, supervision is the nucleus around : which the system is built. The nature of this supervision is, in the final analysis, the determining criterion by which probation itself is evaluated and defined. In its simplest terms, supervision is the oversight which the probation officer exercises over those committed to his custody. Whether, in practice, it becomes something more meaningful than mere oversight depends upon many conditions. If the period when the offender is supposed to be under supervision is merely a time spent under suspended sentence "with the incidental advantages of oversight and admonition on the part of the probation officer and without recourse to severe measures" 1 when the admonitions are not heeded, probation itself is little more than judicial clemency. Few offenders can be expected to transform themselves into law-abiding citizens without some degree of assistance. "Probationers do not, in the absence of active probation service, carry long in mind the effects of the scare of having been in court, and do not materially alter their manner of life simply because the judge or the probation officer advises them to turn over a new leaf.” 2 Probation cannot, moreover, become a constructive force in the administration of criminal justice if supervision amounts only to discipline directed toward holding in check antisocial tendencies during the period. Mere observance of conditions or nonarrest for another offense do not indicate that the probationer has changed for the better. Criminal proclivities are all too often held in check during the entire probation period, only to break out again as soon as the fear of sentence is removed.⭑ 1 Cooley, Organization of a Probation Office, in Glueck, Probation and Criminal Justice (1933) 49, 65. "Towne, Probation and Suspended Sentence (1916) 7 J. Crim. L. 654, 657. • Ibid. • Bolster, Adult Probation, Parole and Suspended Sentence (1910) 1 J. Crim. : L. 438, 443. With years of experience in probation work this important fact has come to be recognized more and more by probation officers. See, e. g., Halpern, A Decade of Probation (an unpublished manuscript) 16-17: ! "The probation officer began to see that nothing short of an individualized approach to the problem which each probationer presented could possibly help to eradicate the maladjustments responsible for the behavior patterns and the delinquencies. The probation officer became more understanding and less arbitrary in his demands, less dogmatic in his evaluations, and began to appreciate that it was in the mental attitudes of probationers that the most fertile field for his efforts could be found. With this understanding and |