What are the advantages and disadvantages of probation and parole officers carrying weapons? Please fully explain each argument

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Advocates of officers carrying firearms contend that as officers are expected to make more late-night home visits and be present out in the field, their time away from the office diminishes, as does their safety. Probation officers in specialized units who supervise gang members and violent offenders have been the most assertive. Officers favoring the carrying of firearms while on duty tended to be younger and more likely to practice law-and-order case management strategies rather than casework or treatment-oriented approaches (Sluder, Shearer, and Potts, 1991). Guns seem to satisfy a philosophical need for safety, independent of the actual perceived threat (Roscoe et al., 2007).
Jurisdictions where probation is under the judicial branch have tended to oppose the carrying of firearms, contending that carrying firearms is a function under the executive branch of powers, and not appropriate for employees of the judicial branch. Those opposed to officers carrying a firearm question whether the threat to probation officers is real or perceived. Opponents argue that not every probation officer may need to carry a deadly weapon, especially if that officer supervises misdemeanants or juveniles. Furthermore, an officer's safety or life may be at greater risk if a probationer or parolee is carrying a weapon, because a greater chance exists that the offender may use a gun against an armed officer than an unarmed officer (Scharr, 2001). An early study found that probation officers who carried a firearm experienced more confrontation incidents than officers who did not carry a firearm. In addition, male probation officers were significantly more likely to be confronted and/or physically assaulted than female probation officers (Parsonage and Bushey, 1989). Since that study, officer confrontations have greatly decreased as officers pay more attention to safety issues by conducting home visits in pairs, wearing body armor, and training in self-defense techniques. Of the serious incidents that have occurred, over half occurred in the field, and only 28% occurred in the probation office. The three most common incidents were threats, animal attacks, and other situations defined as "dangerous" (Small and Torres, 2001).