View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

problems or substance abuse, gained respect among community service workers for such
support. Additionally, the effective supervisor was seen to act as a mediating authority
figure by introducing the offender “to a more realistic attitude to his social and
employment obligations” (Young1979:45)
The original rehabilitative components of community service were not only retained but
were enlarged in the implementation of the community service ideal (Young 1979).
Perhaps this identification of more extensive rehabilitative components is not surprising in
light of the central role played by the Probation Service in setting up such schemes and
developing the sentence of community service. The continuing ethos of rendering
assistance to offenders was not relinquished by the Probation Service when dealing with
communityservice offenders and anyopportunityto enhance the rehabilitative function of
the community service order was encouraged. Writers such as West (1977:116-120) and
Flegg et al (1976) emphasise the non-punitive application of community service; a view
which was quite consistent with the traditional aims of probation.
The danger of overemphasising the rehabilitative aspect of community service presents a
number of difficulties not least of which is the tendency of the “probationisation” of
community service to occur, drawing on all of the discretionary elements of social work
practice byprobation officers (Pease 1981:6; Pease and McWilliams 1980:IX). The related
issue of confidence by sentencers in the operation of community service orders can be
seriously undermined by the overuse of discretionary practices by those operating
communityservice schemes.
The exercise of unwarranted discretion in excusing absences from work schemes,
discounting hours for travel time beyond those permitted by regulations and the like may
lead to loss of confidence by sentencers in the penalty, where sentencers and probation
officers are involved in a mutual relationship, albeit employing different sentencing aims
and practices to achieve a desired result (Young 1979). However, the need for expediency
in processing community service orders within the statutory year may hinder its full
67