Type: Response Essays
Sample donated: Stephanie Hodges
Last updated: October 23, 2019
Assignment 9.3Scenario Critique 3: Parole View Scenario 3 now, and answer the questions below. You may view the scenario as often as you like. Provide specific behavioural examples as part of each answer.
1. In this course, you learned several techniques to use in conflict situations. Which of these techniques did the officers use (for example, LUV, presumptive questioning, empathy, etc)? Explain each one. The officers in the video did not use the LUV technique. This technique uses a sequence of steps, in order to solve crises. The steps include listening, understanding and validating.
In listening, officers should hear the offenders’ side of the story before passing judgment. This is because the questions that the male officer asked Karl were aimed at confirming his suspicions, of him violating his parole. Although he listened to Karl’s story, he did not understand the reasons that made him violate his parole. The LUV technique requires officers to understand the motive for doing an act. This was not the case according to the officers in the video. Furthermore, they did not gather enough information from Karl to validate and incarcerate him.
However, the officers used a presumptive questioning to approach the issue. Presumptive questioning is a means of gathering information, through engaging survivors in discussions about the crisis. According to the video, the parole officer asked Karl leading questions like “You got a speeding ticket. Did you not?” This question is asked by the officer after Karl denies violating his parole. This is a presumptive question because it makes Karl assume that the officer already knows the truth. This method makes Karl increasingly cooperative.
2. Which officer behaviours (including comments) did you feel were helpful and/or effective for the offender, Hank? Which were not? Explain. The officer’s behavior that was helpful to the offender includes the manner in which they approached Karl’s sponsor. The officers approached the sponsor with humility and as such, she welcomed and communicated with them freely. When she asks them if there is a problem the male officer uses comments like “not at all.” This helped to keep Karl’s sponsor calm. Additionally, they did not use force to obtain answers from Karl. This is a good practice because it maintains a calm environment, even when they know that Karl is not being honest with them.
The officers also allow him to explain the actions that led to the violation of his parole. After explaining the reasons, the male officer talks to Karl with humor, in order to ease the tension in the house. Additionally, the officers do not talk in an authoritative manner. They try to reason with Karl and hear his side of the story. The officers also use words and phrases like “Please” and “May I” to show respect to Karl and his sponsor. However, some behaviors displayed by the parole officers were not effective. The female officer took Karl’s sponsor to the kitchen in order to calm her down.
This did not work efficiently because when they came back to the living room, she was still angry. In addition, the female officer emphasized the seriousness of the matter to Karl’s sponsor by saying ‘we take this very seriously’. This was a not acceptable behavior because it made the situation worse. Furthermore, they did not explain the reasons for their visit to the girlfriend before they were welcomed into the house. This probably made the sponsor angrier because she was shocked to find out that Karl had violated his parole. 3. Did you observe any missed opportunities as the officers communicated with the offender? If yes, explain.
No. There were no instances of missed opportunities within the parole scenario. The parole officers carried out their obligations perfectly as required as of them. Regarding communication, the parole officers illustrated or employed responsibility during the interface with the lawbreaker. There was also evidence of response during the parole scenario. Instead of the parole officers reacting to the situation, they proceeded to respond to the unpredictable situation in a composed manner. Additionally, the officers also exercised composure by ceasing to react to the prevailing situation. There was also effective utilization of presumptive questioning during the situation.
Furthermore, the parole officers displayed effectual understanding of the respective audience, the delinquent. Thus, there was use of verbal judo techniques aimed at extracting the right information from the offender. 4. What safety issues for the officer did you notice? The parole officers in the video clip practiced many safety issues. Certain safety issues arose during the parole scenario. The officers focused on concentrating on such issues in order to secure themselves from any unfortunate or surprise attacks or circumstances.
One of the main safety issues involves physical altercation. A physical altercation could arise from the offender based on his persistent nature to dismiss the charges presented to him by the parole officers. Another safety issue that arose during the parole scenario comprised emotional instability.
At that time, since the parole officers were delivering accusations against the delinquent, emotional instability, such as tempers, were a probability in the scenario. Such instability could pose great danger to the officer based on the emotions of the offender. 5. What might you have done differently if you were the officer? Describe your thoughts in terms of concepts you have learned in this course. If I were the officer, I would have done some actions differently. I would have tried to calm Karl’s sponsor, before explaining the seriousness of the offence that he had committed.
I would achieve this by using the LUV technique. This will allow me to listen, understand and validate the situation, before taking Karl away. Additionally, I would have offered Karl alternatives and advice, in order to avoid the problem again. Moreover, I would have explained the extent of damage to Karl and not the sponsor.
Applying all these measures would ensure that the tension in the house is controlled.