The procedure of recidivism risk assessment for offenders under probation supervision in Poland has been in operation in Poland since 2015. Pursuant to § 1 of Article 169b of the Executive Penal Code, perpetrators of crimes under probation are classified into one of three risk groups: A (low risk); B (basic group); and C (high risk). The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of probation supervision and the effectiveness of risk assessment regulated by Article 169b. In the total sample ( N = 795), 23.9% of supervised probation participants committed an offense during probation, while 76.1% of the men did not commit an offense during that period. The AUC value for predicting crime during the probation period (i.e., general recidivism) did not even exceed .60 (.59). In summary, the results of our research on recidivism forecasting based on the model used in the Polish criminal justice system, cast doubt on the viability of this solution.
Apologies and forgiveness are emerging standards for restorative justice meetings, but these should not be encouraged and should arise voluntarily. When apologies and forgiveness are not freely given, their moral and restorative value may be undermined. This study used audio-recordings of four restorative justice meetings that were transcribed and examined using the method of conversation analysis to understand why the core sequence of apology-forgiveness was not always achieved. This analysis identified three apology-forgiveness cycles: apology facilitating forgiveness, apology without forgiveness, and forgiveness promoting apology (Suzuki and Jenkins, 2023). Findings show that these sequences are remarkably fragile, and that facilitators play a pivotal role in shaping their remedial potential. These exchanges were most effective when apologies and responses emerged as voluntary, freely given and authentic forms of repair. When the facilitator pursued a fuller apology, this undermined its remedial force.
This paper examines the European Probation Order (Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA) and its dual aim of enhancing offender rehabilitation while concurrently protecting victims and the general public. However, the legal framework lacks clarity on how victim protection is operationalised, raising concerns about the implementation of recognised post-trial victim rights during the transfer of probation measures. Through doctrinal and normative analysis, the paper reveals that the existing EU instrument designed to support victim rights, the Victims’ Rights Directive, does not adequately consider rights in the post-trial phase, even following its 2026 revision. The paper explores these gaps and evaluates the effectiveness of Framework Decision 947 in ensuring victim protection after sentencing. It reveals significant shortcomings in the current EU framework that prevent victims from fully exercising their rights when probation measures and alternative sanctions are transferred.
The study examines the influence of parents on the working alliance between juvenile probation officers and adolescents on probation in Greece. Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 Greek juvenile probation officers from seven juvenile probation services throughout the country, the study identifies the specific attitudes and behaviors that enhance—or hinder—the probation officer-adolescent working alliance, focusing on two of its core elements: the emotional bond and goals agreed upon by the dyad. The study proposes a tripartite model of the probation officer–adolescent alliance, shifting from a dyadic approach to one where parents act as key mediators who can either reinforce or hinder trust and goals within the justice process. Parental attitudes, often rooted in their perception of the officer as caring or controlling, act as catalysts or disruptors—highlighting the need for a parallel alliance with parents to strengthen the officer-adolescent alliance and drive effective outcomes.
