ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION MAY BE LIMITED BY LAW OR MAY BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURTS. IN PRACTICE, THE POWER OF THE COURT TO ORDER PROBATION VARIES FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY. USUALLY, STATUTES SPECIFY GENERAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY JUDGES BEFORE GRANTING PROBATION, E.G., PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENDER, FAMILY BACKGROUND, NATURE OF THE OFFENSE, PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION. THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION, WHICH IN MOST COUNTRIES IS ENTRUSTED TO THE PROBATION SERVICE, IS ESSENTIAL IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN OFFENDER IS SUITABLE FOR PROBATION. ONE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION IS THAT OFTEN PROBATION OFFICERS ARE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO CARRY OUT THEIR SUPERVISORY DUTIES. THE NEGATIVE ATTITUDES OF SENTENCING JUDGES TOWARD PROBATION ARE SAID TO BE A MAJOR IMPEDENCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION. MISCONCEPTIONS ON THE PART OF THE COURT ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY AND METHODS OF PROBATION, TOGETHER WITH MISGIVINGS CONCERNING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBATION AS A METHOD OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT PROBATIONERS, INFLUENCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS. THE USE OF ADULT PROBATION SHOULD BE EXTENDED, GIVEN THE FOLLOWING BASIC PROVISIONS: A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR APPLICATION OF PROBATION; ADEQUATELY TRAINED PROBATION PERSONNEL; ADEQUATE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; RATIONAL, REALISTIC SUPERVISORY TECHNIQUES; COHERENT ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATION SERVICE; AND PUBLIC COOPERATION. THE DISCUSSION CITES PROBATION, POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN THAILAND AND OTHER COUNTRIES. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. --LM