Do parole officers carry guns in texas

Community Resources Paper

Imagine yourself as the director of a large Community Supervision and Corrections Department (probation) and you have decided that your department’s position is to NOT arm the community supervision officers. This does not mean that they cannot carry mace as a tool for self-defense, but no one will carry handguns on their person and none will not be permitted to be used in conjunction with their job.

In 3 to 5 pages utilizing proper APA format (an example is provided for your reference and use), not including the cover sheet and reference page, you are to strongly present your position to your department personnel. Your paper must reflect your conviction with all the reasons not to arm your probation officers. Your position is to include, but not limited to the following:

Liability to the department and to the individual officer involved in a shooting.
Reduces required training and continuous annual weapons training.
Eliminates the oversight of all logistical matters that deal with weapons qualification and continuous weapons training.
Eliminates weapons safety issues in the office.
No longer requires the ability to have in place the requirement to provide psychological counseling that would be required if an officer did shoot and kill a probationer.
There are other issues that you will probably think of or you can do the research and locate more reasons that support why there are numerous agencies, across the country, that do not arm their officers. Your paper is to adamantly and fully support your position with as many reasons as you can justify.

Community Services Paper

Melvin D. Norman

Central Texas College

J.R. Hammond, MSCJ-PA

CRIJ-2301

December 21, 2020

The issue of not Arming Community Supervision Officers

Introduction

The issue of whether probation officers should be armed and permitted to use firearms is sensitive and has tremendous implications for the officers, their welfare, and safety. Probation officers were authorized to carry guns to enhance the supervision of criminals in rehabilitation centers. Arming the probation officers seemed to shift their primary function to law enforcement officers from social workers (Rhineberger & Mack, 2018). Although arming probation officers, there are concerns about the misuse of firearms by some officers. Also, the officers are required to be qualified and trained in the use of firearms. Even though arming the officers has a positive impact, especially regarding their safety and confidence in duty, there is a necessity to review the policy and consider the officers' negative consequences of carrying and using firearms. The following issues show the need not to arm probation officers in our institution.

Liability to the Department and the Individual officer involved in shooting (this was centered. Should be all the way to the left).

Handling a firearm while on duty can be very risky to the officers. A probation center contains all characters of people ranging from criminals, drug abusers, people with a mental condition, and too violent individuals. According to Johnson (2018) officers working in the probation department are provoked continuously by violent individuals, clients with a mental disorder, or those who are not comfortable being in the facility. This frequent provocation to the probation officers by the probators while on duty can easily tempt them to use their firearms on the offenders. They can do this either to protect them from impending harm or as a punishment to the offender out of anger and frustration. Shooting the offender will lead to death or serious bodily injury.

If the officer shoots the client to death, he or she will (could) face murder charges in a court of law if their actions are deemed to be illegal. Being charged with murder is the last thing any person will want to experience because these are serious charges which attract heavy penalties and long imprisonment sentences. If an officer who shot dead, the client is charged and proved guilty, he is likely to be sentenced to long imprisonment, thus ruining their life. On the other hand, if the shooting inflicts harm on the client, the injured victim can sue the officer for money damages under state tort law.

In case of shooting, whether it results in death or injury, the (d)epartment (could) also be sued for negligence. The probation department is solely responsible for the safety and welfare of clients under them. The management of the (d)epartment is responsible for ensuring that their officers work in the confinement of the law. Therefore, every need is not to arm the officers with firearms but instead develop alternative protocols to ensure the officers' safety.

Reducing required training and continuous annual weapons training (this was centered. Should be all the way to the left).

(O)fficers need to undergo training about the basics of operating the weapons, especially firearms. These weapons are complicated to be used by any individual with no prior experience I understand your meaning here, however the sentence doesn’t read well). The exercise is costly in terms of time and resources used in the training process. Johnson (2018) argues that to train the officers, the (d)epartment has to hire qualified personnel to do the task (most departments use personal within the department to conduct the training through train the trainer programs). The institution will save a significant amount of resources and time used in training by eliminating the use of weapons. For the training to be practical, it must be an ongoing affair, not a one-time experience, resulting in time wastage in conducting continuous training sessions.

Eliminating oversight and logistical matters (this was centered. Should be all the way to the left).

The use of weapons, such as guns in any organization requires authorization by the government. Dealing with the logistical issues increases departmental staff's burden who are tasked with overseeing and documentation the weapons and their usage. These weapons are also subject to oversight, control, and regulation by the government. Therefore, the management should keep in touch with government representatives to comply with the government's logistical and control protocols. Failure to abide by the guidelines and protocols issued can result in legal action taken against the Department. Therefore eliminating the use of the weapons will relieve both the management and other staff of these responsibilities. Hence, they will focus on other more important concerns, such as the general welfare of the clients, for the good of the corrections department. Besides, the officers are required to be qualified to use the weapons. Therefore the Department must have to recruit individuals with the necessary qualification to use the guns. The officers also need to acquire licensing from the relevant authorities before being around to handle and use the weapons. Obtaining licenses for all of them is costly and results in the wastage of a significant amount of resources.

Improves the relationship between the Officers and the Clients (this was centered. Should be all the way to the left).

Whenever the officers carry deadly weapons around, it will scare the clients who will feel afraid of getting close to the officers. According to Lowry (2018) arming the officers will ruin the interactive relationship they have with the clients. Also, arming them creates a hostile environment instead of a friendly environment, which promotes peaceful interaction and coexistence. Besides, not arming the officers establishes a sense of belonging and confidence among the clients. Considering this is a correction department, it is essential to create an environment where the clients feel appreciated and cared for, instead of treating them like criminals.

Eliminates weapons safety issues (this was centered. Should be all the way to the left).

Handling deadly weapons can be very challenging for any institution. The corrections department has a responsibility to ensure the guns are used by only those authorized and licensed by the authorities. The Department will be liable if the weapons are misused or fall into the hands of unauthorized people. Therefore, keeping the weapons and ensuring their safety is an unnecessary burden to the Department. Lowry (2018) argued that some of the Department's clients might be serial killers or criminals who might seize the opportunity to steal the weapons and use them in their malicious activities. Also, having weapons is a threat since criminals are likely to attack and steal the weapons.

Eliminates the need to have psychological counseling (this was centered. Should be all the way to the left).

On some occasions, an officer might shoot and kill or inflict deadly harm upon a client. The officer consequently suffers from depression or mental condition in case of such a scenario. The (d)epartment, therefore, must ensure the availability of counseling sessions for such officers. Contracting psychological counselors are expensive, hence the necessity to prevent situations that can result in the need to hire a counselor's services (Rhineberger & Mack, 2018). Therefore, the (d)epartment should eliminate the use of weapons to avoid such problems to reduce operational costs. Besides, an officer who shoots and kills a client might never recover psychologically even after undergoing counseling. That being said what about the psychological effects on an officer that is attacked by their client?

Conclusion

Lastly, the role of a probation officer is very different from that of a police officer. Police officers carry and use firearms and other weapons because they face danger in their line of duty. The gun is not only a weapon but a symbol of the police officer's position. Therefore, probation officers should never be likened to police officers. If a probation officer faces a threat or a dangerous situation, the right response is to retreat to safety or call the police. Johnson, (2018) reported that arming the probation officers is unnecessary since they face minimum danger, which they can use other mechanisms to solve.

References

Lowry, K. (2018). Responding to the challenges of violent extremism/terrorism cases for United States probation and pretrial services. Journal for Deradicalization, (17), 28-88.

Rhineberger-Dunn, G., & Mack, K. Y. (2018). To Carry or not to Carry: Predictors of Support for Allowing Probation/Parole Officers to Carry Firearms. Corrections, 3(2), 92-104.

Johnson, C. M. (2018). Probation officer role orientation and perception of safety: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University).

APA citations should always be listed alphabetically and have a hanging indent.

Johnson, C. M. (2018). Probation officer role orientation and perception of safety: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University).

Lowry, K. (2018). Responding to the challenges of violent extremism/terrorism cases for United States probation and pretrial services. Journal for Deradicalization, (17), 28-88.

Rhineberger-Dunn, G., & Mack, K. Y. (2018). To Carry or not to Carry: Predictors of Support for Allowing Probation/Parole Officers to Carry Firearms. Corrections, 3(2), 92-104.

Melvin,

I thought your paper overall was well done. Some of the questions I asked are more just something for you to think about. I would for you to look at this paper as a rough draft. Make corrections and resubmit for final grade. Thank you for your thoughts.

H.