The difference between Probation and Suspended Sentence:
Although probation to some extent has its historical roots in suspended sentence and both of them are closely linked with court procedure but the two materially differ in many aspects. All suspended sentences are not probation. The probation must carry with it some degree of supervision which is not necessary in case of suspended sentence.
As regards the suspended sentence, Judges are restricted by statute in invoking it. In some cases, imposition of sentence is suspended while in others its execution is suspended. As to the desirability of one of these forms over the other, general view is that out of the two, the suspension of imposition of sentence is preferable.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This is because of the fact that in this case, there is lesser stigma attached on the offender. Commenting on the suspended sentence, Barnes and Teeters observed that suspended sentence is vestige of the era of retributive justice and should either be abolished or reinterpreted in the light of the newer philosophy of probation. In their view, when certain jurists began to place restrictions on the quasi-freedom of the recipients of the suspended sentence, the rudiments of probation began to emerge.
Distinguishing probation from suspended sentence, Sir Leon Radzinowicz observed that probation is far more ambitious and adaptable idea than discharge or suspended sentence. Under probation, the court prescribes no sentence but instead, requires the offender to be under supervision of a probation officer and maintain contact with him for a prescribed period.
In England, this period may vary from one to three years and in parts of United States, it may be upto five years. The probationer becomes liable to sentence for original crime only when he fails to keep the requirements or commits another offence. Probation is essentially selective, designed only for those who have better prospects to reform.