Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article states that the subjects of special criminological prevention of criminal offenses committed by probation subjects are probation bodies, police, non-specialized subjects of prevention (legislative and judicial power, their structural bodies and institutions, various formations and public associations, owners of enterprises), as well as judicial authorities and other bodies of state control, local self-government bodies, etc. Among the main directions of special criminological prevention of criminal offenses are: counteraction to manifestations of antisocial orientation and criminogenic motivation of the convict; involvement of psychologists and specialists from other spheres of life in the process of correction and resocialization of convicts; reducing the influence of external causes and conditions for the commission of a criminal offense, etc. It is proved that the introduction of these directions is an important step towards building a qualitatively new model of probation, created not on the ideology of control and authority, but on the therapeutic and rehabilitation philosophy. It is determined that probation personnel process a large amount of information and make strategic decisions, but it is necessary to take into account numerous and competing professional, political and personal interests in providing assistance to probation subjects. Since most of the decisions made by the probation officer during the preparation of the pre-trial report are intuitive, taking into account previous experience and rarely focus on the study of criminogenic needs and taking into account the results of the study of the convict’s personality, taking into account the correctional programs he has undergone. It is determined that the basis of special criminological crime prevention by the probation body should be a change in the strategy of probation from a form of supervision focused on individual preventive influence on the convict to a form that would be based on compliance with the conditions of probation, implementation of plans for special criminological prevention, support of the convict, assistance in restoring the violated rights not only to the convict, but also to the convict, but also the victim, which would provide an opportunity to determine the optimally appropriate number of supervisory meetings between the probation officer and the convict and reduce the workload of probation officers.
S.V. Tsariuk (Wed,) studied this question.