The debate on whether or not to arm probation and parole officer is one that has surfaced only in the last years as the traditional role these community correction professionals carry out in our society has changed from social worker/counselor to a “law enforcement” role (Small & Torres, 2015). This new role now requires probation and parole officers to have more direct in the field supervision of and interaction with their clients. As the role of probation and parole officer has changed so has the violent nature of the offenders with whom they …show more content…
The traditionalist believes the role of the probation and parole officer is still the same at it ever was social worker/counselor, while the enforcement-oriented probation and parole officer believes it lies in law enforcement. The traditionalist believes carrying a gun might portray mistrust to one’s clients, whereas the enforcement-oriented probation officer sees it as added protection to protect himself and his community when in the field dealing with violent offenders (Small & Torres, 2015). In answer to this situation, the probation or parole officer could either 1) evaluate the situation and if it is safe to do so leave the gun at the office or 2) conceal it out of sight so the client does not see it. Traditionalists also believe arming probation and parole officers will cause them to abandon the social worker/counselor aspect of the job for the more exciting law enforcement aspect (Small & Torres, 2015). To ensure this does not happen probation and parole officers should have annual reviews in which their superiors evaluate and let them know what they think of their performance. Another area that concerns traditionalists is what will happen if things escalate out of control and the probation or parole officer’s gun causes an injury or even death (Small & Torres, 2015). In answer to this the probation and parole officer must receive not only annual and