Your editorial(社论) on overcrowded prisons and probation (13 October) was most welcome as it highlights a crisis in community justice that shows little sign of abating(减弱，消退). You say that problems date back to(追溯到) the failed part-privatisation(部分私有化) of the probation service, but in reality political interference(政治干预) has been happening for far longer than that.
你们10月13日关于监狱过度拥挤和缓刑服务的社论非常值得欢迎，因为它凸显了一场几乎没有任何消退迹象的社区司法危机。你们说问题可以追溯到缓刑服务部分私有化的失败，但实际上，政治干预存在的时间要长得多。
Having worked for years as a prison probation officer and then in an aftercare(善后安置，释放后照管) and resettlement(重新安置，重新融入) unit for ex-offenders(刑满释放人员), I saw good practice(良好实践，最佳做法) and ongoing practical and emotional support that demonstrated all the important points raised by Enver Solomon in his recent Guardian article.
我曾多年担任监狱缓刑监督官，后来又在为刑满释放人员提供善后安置的单位工作。我目睹了良好的实践以及持续的实际和情感支持，这些恰恰印证了恩维尔·所罗门在近期《卫报》文章中提出的所有重要观点。
Staff visited prisons and got to know inmates before they were released, which involved in-depth discussions of their offending history and what was needed for successful resettlement.(工作人员在囚犯获释前探访监狱并了解他们，这包括深入讨论他们的犯罪史以及成功安置所需的条件。) Staff visited wet day centres(允许饮酒的日间中心) for problem drinkers and established links with community organisations. They did not see themselves as the exclusive purveyors(提供者) of rehabilitation.
工作人员会在囚犯获释前探访监狱、了解他们，这包括深入讨论他们的犯罪史以及成功重新安置所需的条件。工作人员会走访面向问题饮酒者的“wet day centres”（日间饮酒中心），并与社区组织建立联系。他们并不把自己视为改造的唯一提供者。