flashlights and batons, chemical agents such as Oleoresin Capsicum (pepper .
spray), and firearms including revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. .
Meanwhile, many other probation agencies remain steadfast against officers .
carrying weapons. Such "no carry" policies are thought to be justified by one .
or a combination of the following reasons. First, many agency administrators .
are reluctant to allow officers to carry weapons because of potential .
liability in the event an officer actually uses the weapon, either .
intentionally or accidentally (Stiles, 1996). Second, many probation .
personnel believe that officers should not carry weapons because of the .
philosophy that probation supervision should be based on rehabilitation and .
carrying a weapon would give the impression both to the public and to .
offenders that probation is instead a "control" or law enforcement entity. .
Third, others believe that if officers are armed, tension between officer and .
offender will escalate and the offender will be more likely to attack the .
officer (Schuman, 1989). Finally, arguments point to the high cost of .
training officers and supplying weapons (Desmendt, 1996). .
Regardless of the questions of liability or perceived missions of the .
department, the fact remains that probation officer's are constantly in .
contact with a very dangerous element of society. Probation caseloads have .
expanded and offender populations are more diversified than ever before. The .
prevalence of certain drugs on the streets, such as crack cocaine, has .
increased the potential for violence (Holden, 1989). Many offenders .
themselves are armed and will do anything to avoid incarceration. These .
issues have forced many probation professionals to reconsider and change .
their traditional practices including providing officers with defensive .
weapons (American Probation and Parole Association Board of Directors, 1994). .
Legislative initiatives and department policies require many probation .
