A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal document that presents the findings of an investigation into the "legal and social background" of a person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which should influence the severity or leniency of a criminal sentence.[1][2] The PSIR is a "critical"[1] document prepared by a probation officer via a system of point allocation,[1] so that it may serve as a charging document and exhibit for proving criminal conduct. The PSIR system is widely implemented today.
PSIR reports trace their origins to the efforts of prison reformer John Augustus who in the 1840s began a campaign to allow discretion in sentencing to help those who were deemed undeserving of harsh sentences and could be reformed. More specifically, in the Police Court of Boston, Augustus posted bail for a man, promising the judge that the man would improve upon returning to the court and would earn a lessened sentence.[1] The rationale behind this was that if a person was not a dangerous criminal, i.e. convicted murderer or other violent offender, that they should be allowed to have familial support, continue working, as well a receive aid from trained specialists, without being in prison.[3] The practice then became firmly entrenched in the 1920s under a theory that crime was a pathology that could be diagnosed and treated like a disease; PSIRs were meant to expose the main reasons behind criminal acts by looking at the offenders history in light of forgiveness and understanding, and thus resulting in a positive change for the future.[1][4] Since the 1970s, the focus of these documents has increasingly shifted to profiling the defendant's criminal history, with a decreasing emphasis on the defendant's social background.[1] This is at least partially attributable to the increase in public fear of crime since the 1970s as well as the increasing opposition to more "liberal" approaches to the matter of criminal justice.[1]
The information included in a typical PSIR encompasses both legal and extralegal information about the defendant such as:[5][6][3]
Legal Information
Juvenile record
Adult record
Previous court record
Probation/parole history
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
Official version of offense
Plea bargain
Custody status
Pending cases
Previous cases
Recommendation summary
Extralegal Information
Probation officer recommendations
Gang affiliation
Background and ties to the community
Substance use disorder history
Physical health
Mental health
Financial circumstances
Employment history
Education history
Medical history
Victim-impact statement
Marital history
Military record
Evaluative/needs summary
There is considerably more extralegal information contained within the PSIR. This is important because many have seen this as suggestive of sentencing disparities or inequality in the treatment of offenders with a lower socioeconomic status or little to few ties to the community. However, as Alarid and Montemayor (2010, p.130) state, "The use of extralegal factors becomes especially important in that the PSIR identifies needs related to the defendant's criminal behavior for future treatment intervention services".[5]
Purpose
The report has an immediate purpose: to help the court determine an appropriate sentence as well as aide in officer sentencing recommendations. The report serves to collect objective, relevant, and factual information on a specific defendant.[7] Since the advent of the sentencing guidelines, the importance of the presentence reports has increased. This is because the document is now designed to frame factual and legal issues for sentencing. Thereafter, if a defendant is incarcerated, the Bureau of Prisons or State Department of Corrections will use information in the report to designate the institution where the offender will serve the sentence and determine the offender's eligibility or need for specific correctional programs. Also, depending on the jurisdiction, the presentence report can be used to calculate the release date. The probation officer assigned responsibility for the offender's case during probation and supervised release will use the report to make an initial assessment of case needs and risks. Additionally, the report may be used as a source of information for future research. The information allows changing of a sentence subject to the Commitment Order and the judge's verdict.[8] This report is considered "the critical document at both the sentencing and the correction stages"[9] of the criminal justice system.
Preparation
Whether interviewing or reviewing documents, the probation officer must weigh the evidence based on the best available information. The final report must contain only accurate information. The goal is to produce a report that the court may rely upon at sentencing. Though it is inevitable that there will be data that the probation officer is unable to verify, that information should be clearly identified. The probation officer must distinguish between facts and the inferences, opinions, or conclusions based upon those facts. [citation needed]
When a defendant is referred for a presentence investigation, the officer must immediately begin to gather the facts. Though the procedure varies slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the officer usually conducts several aspects of the investigation concurrently to ensure that the presentence report is submitted to the court on time. Since officers routinely conduct multiple presentence investigations simultaneously, meeting the deadlines can be difficult. [citation needed]
Review of records
During any investigation a probation officer may review numerous documents including: court dockets, plea agreements, investigative reports from numerous agencies, previous probation or parole records, pretrial services records, medical records, counseling and substance use disorder treatment records, scholastic records, employment records, financial records, and others. The probation officer must study and review each document received and determine the likely accuracy of the record. [citation needed]
The probation officer's investigation of the offense usually begins with an examination of the complaint, information, or indictment charging the defendant and the docket describing the judicial history of the case. These documents may be found in the district court clerk's file. The officer will use them to develop a brief chronological history of the prosecution of the case and identify the specific charges that resulted in the conviction. The review of the clerk's file may also reveal the identities of co-defendants or related cases, the status of which must be investigated and reported in the presentence report. At the same time, the probation officer may also request information about the offender's history, circumstances, and release status from the pretrial services officer or from a separate pretrial services agency. [citation needed]
Before interviewing the defendant about the offense, the probation officer must review official descriptions of the offense conduct and the applicable guidelines. As a result, it is often necessary to postpone a discussion of the offense until a second interview. The offender is also asked to submit a written statement about the offense conduct. [citation needed]
Additionally, the probation officer must make an inquiry into the offender's criminal history. This is usually accomplished by using databases maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), or state law enforcement agencies. Though the guideline criminal history category is based only upon sentences imposed for juvenile adjudications and criminal convictions meeting specific criteria, the probation officer reports all known incidents in which the defendant has been involved in criminal behavior to partially fulfill the statutory mandate to provide information to the court regarding the history and characteristics of the defendant. The early examination of computerized criminal history records enables the officer to identify which law enforcement, court, and correctional records must be reviewed. In addition, the initial interview of the defendant should include questioning about the offender's residential history so that the officer can check local police and court records in every jurisdiction where the defendant has lived. Additionally, the probation officer may request physical and mental health, educational, employment or financial records from a variety of sources to corroborate information provided by the offender. [citation needed]
Interview of defendant
Probation officers investigate by interviewing and reviewing documents. Unless the defendant declines, the defendant is questioned in every case. Additionally, the officer should interview the defense counsel, the prosecutor, law enforcement agents who investigated the conduct that led to the defendant's conviction, victims, the defendant's family, present or previous employers, school officials, doctors, counselors, and others. The diverse interview settings that probation officers encounter require them to be proficient in a variety of questioning techniques.[10]
Ideally, the offender is available for the interview early in the investigation. The defendant interview is the pivotal point around which the presentence investigation turns. Often, the format is a structured interview during which a standard worksheet is completed. The worksheet follows the format of the presentence report and provides space for recording data about the offense and the offender's characteristics and history. Each item on the form is reviewed with the defendant. Even though some of the data solicited from the offender during this interview may not appear in the final report, it is impossible at this stage to determine what information will be included. No question is asked without a purpose. The defendant's answers will determine follow up questions, items for further investigation or corroboration, and, ultimately, whether the data should be included in the report. [citation needed]
The presentence investigation is often the first inquiry into the offender's past, and the initial interview provides the framework for the report's description of the offender's history and circumstances. The probation officer inquires about the defendant's family and developmental history, familial and marital relationships, education, employment history, physical and mental health, alcohol or controlled substance abuse, and finances. The emphasis throughout the questioning is on identifying information that is relevant for understanding the defendant's offense conduct and present situation. During the interview, the probation officer will ask the offender to sign authorizations to release confidential information. At the conclusion of the initial interview, the offender may be asked to provide numerous documents to the probation officer substantiating the offender's complete life history. Additionally, the offender may be asked to submit an autobiography. [citation needed]
If the defendant impedes the probation officer's investigation, e.g. by failing to disclose all prior convictions and arrests, his sentence may be increased for obstruction of justice and failure to accept responsibility, even if the undisclosed information has no effect on his criminal history score. Since some defendants may not remember all such prior history, some defense attorneys conduct their own investigations. Some courts have ruled that a defendant waives his Fifth Amendmentright against self-incrimination when he pleads guilty. It remains to be seen exactly how this applies to presentence investigation interviews, but it appears likely that a defendant who refuses to talk about his criminal history will jeopardize his sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility.[11]
Gathering of information from other persons
Another step that must occur early in the investigation is contact prosecutor assigned to the case. The prosecutor will be asked to provide information about the conduct that resulted in the defendant's conviction, victim's losses, the defendant's history, and any other data relevant to the sentencing decision. Recently, the amount of time PSI's spend on personal background information has decreased in favor of facts concerning the criminal act.[1] During the investigation, the defense counsel will also be asked to discuss the same topics.
After the interview of the offender, contact with the prosecutor, and the criminal history inquiry, the probation officer must identify any information gaps, must identify potential sources for the missing information, and must plan on how to eliminate the gaps. It may be necessary for the investigating officer to request another probation officer in another jurisdiction to conduct a collateral investigation about a specific aspect of the case. Supplemental interviews may be scheduled with case agents, victims, family members, employers, counselors, or others. [citation needed]
Writing and revision
Gradually, the emphasis shifts from gathering information to analyzing data. The probation officer must take the tentative findings of fact regarding the offense conduct and criminal history and must make tentative applications of the sentencing guidelines. The applicable sentencing options that the probation officer must recite in the presentence report. Additionally, the probation officer must study the case to identify potential grounds for departure from the guidelines and then must analyze any potential departure to determine if it is valid. During the investigation, the probation officer may consult a probation officer specialist who is a subject matter expert about guidelines, financial investigation, mental health, substance abuse, or some other aspect of the case. The probation officer may also consult a supervisor or, in a team environment, other members of the officer's team. [citation needed]
Finally, the probation officer must write a draft of the report for disclosure to the defendant and the attorneys. When objections to report are received, the probation officer must manage the resolution of disputes. The officer must be impartial and open to opposing perspective and must consider all relevant and reliable information before making an independent judgment about the tentative findings of fact and guideline applications that will be recommended to the court. The probation officer must be prepared to report unresolved disputes to the court in a detached, dispassionate manner focusing on the factual or legal disagreement among the parties. [citation needed]
After revising the report in response to objections, the probation officer develops a sentencing recommendation based on the facts and sentencing options identified in the report. The written justification for the recommendation is the probation officer's evaluation and analysis of the offense, the offender, and the sentencing options. The justification provides the officer's rationale for the specific sentencing recommendations. It should address the statutory factors to be considered in imposing a sentence and should assist the court in the preparation of the judge's statement of reasons for imposing a sentence. [citation needed]
The officer then discloses the final report and sentencing recommendation to court through a mathematical system of allocating points. The total number of points allocated in each case lets the judge know what the presumptive sentence is.[1] The officer also discloses the report to the defendant, and both attorneys. The probation officer must then be prepared to discuss the case with the sentencing judge in chambers or in court, to answer questions about the report that arise during the sentencing hearing, and, ultimately, to testify under oath in open court as to the basis for the factual findings and guideline applications recommended in the report. [citation needed]
In the Federal System, after the offender's sentencing by the Court, the probation officer must ensure that copies of the pre-sentence report and other requested documents are forwarded to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. If possible, the probation officer must also interview the offender after sentencing and instruct the defendant about the conditions of supervision that the court imposed. A written copy of the conditions of supervision must be provided to each offender. [citation needed]
The report must be disclosed to the court, the defendant, defendant's counsel, and the attorney for the government at least 35 days before the sentencing. Local rules, adopted by the judges of each jurisdiction, supplement the federal rules and set a specific schedule for the disclosure of the initial draft of the presentence report to the defendant and both counsel. The schedule for the filing of objections to the report by counsel and the submission of the final report to the court, the defendant, and counsel may be set, as well.[12]
The probation officer must manage the investigation process within the time line established by those rules. In addition to gathering information, the officer must plan to verify that information, interpret and evaluate the data, determine the appropriate sentencing guidelines and statutes to the specific facts of the case, and present the results of the investigation in an organized and objective report. The probation officer must set deadlines for the submission of information by the defendant and others and monitor compliance with the deadlines. [citation needed]
Limitations
One major point of criticism lies in the lack of objectivity inherent to PEIs as a genre. As the author, the probation officer is expected to report only factual information, which can result in an exclusion of background information regarding the defendant, ultimately impacting the perception of the accused and potentially the subsequent sentencing.[1]
The document has recently undergone several structural changes to become more of an unbiased law enforcement tool, and less of a broad overview of the defendant and their circumstances. The goal of these changes has been to enforce a strict adherence to simply reporting facts. Unfortunately, this may have only changed the appearance of any subjective judgement made on the defendant, without actually removing bias.[1]
Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court often in lieu of incarceration.
A suspended sentence is a sentence on conviction for a criminal offence, the serving of which the court orders to be deferred in order to allow the defendant to perform a period of probation. If the defendant does not break the law during that period and fulfills the particular conditions of the probation, the sentence is usually considered fulfilled. If the defendant commits another offence or breaks the terms of probation, the court can order the sentence to be served, in addition to any sentence for the new offence.
Forensic psychiatry is a subspeciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology. It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. According to the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, it is defined as "a subspecialty of psychiatry in which scientific and clinical expertise is applied in legal contexts involving civil, criminal, correctional, regulatory, or legislative matters, and in specialized clinical consultations in areas such as risk assessment or employment." A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment, such as medications and psychotherapy, to criminals.
The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors or infractions.
Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.
A probation and parole officer is an official appointed or sworn to investigate, report on, and supervise the conduct of convicted offenders on probation or those released from incarceration to community supervision such as parole. Most probation and parole officers are employed by the government of the jurisdiction in which they operate, although some are employed by private companies that provide contracted services to the government.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System, also called the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, part of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, is the probation office of the federal judiciary of the United States. It serves the United States district courts in all 94 federal judicial districts nationwide and constitutes the community corrections arm of the Federal Judiciary. It administers probation and supervised release under United States federal law enforced by probation officers.
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."
The youth justice system in England and Wales comprises the organs and processes that are used to prosecute, convict and punish persons under 18 years of age who commit criminal offences. The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young persons.
In the United States, sentencing law varies by jurisdiction. The jurisdictions in the US legal system are federal, state, regional, and county. Each jurisdictional entity has governmental bodies that create common, statutory, and regulatory law, although some legal issues are handled more often at the federal level, while other issues are the domain of the states. Civil rights, immigration, interstate commerce, and constitutional issues are subject to federal jurisdiction. Issues such as domestic relations, which includes domestic violence; marriage and divorce; corporations; property; contracts; and criminal laws are generally governed by states, unless there is federal preemption.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable. Applying this rule to the case at hand, it upheld a sentence of 36 months' probation imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy in the face of a recommended sentence of 30 to 37 months in prison.
United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision following release from prison.
Sentencing in England and Wales refers to a bench of magistrates or district judge in a magistrate's court or a judge in the Crown Court passing sentence on a person found guilty of a criminal offence. In deciding the sentence, the court will take into account a number of factors: the type of offence and how serious it is, the timing of any plea of guilty, the defendant's character and antecedents, including their criminal record and the defendant's personal circumstances such as their financial circumstances in the case of a fine being imposed.
The North Carolina Structured Sentencing Act was adopted and implemented in order to give the judge a specific set of standards to follow when sentencing a person. There was a need to change the way that criminals were sentenced in order to lower the prison population, and ensure that the people that were spending time in prison were there for necessary reasons, and that they were serving an adequate amount of time based on their criminal history, and their current level of crime. The structured sentencing act put fair and clear cut guidelines for a judge to follow, while ensuring the publics interest was still being looked after.
Expungement in the United States is a process which varies across jurisdictions. Many states allow for criminal records to be sealed or expunged, although laws vary by state. Some states do not permit expungement, or allow expungement under very limited circumstances. In general, once sealed or expunged, all records of an arrest and of any subsequent court proceedings are removed from the public record, and the individual may legally deny or fail to acknowledge ever having been arrested for or charged with any crime which has been expunged.
The concept of probation was introduced to Pakistan, then part of British India, in 1923. This initial system amounted to binding over some first-time offenders, without supervision by probation staff, and applied chiefly to young offenders. Reforms and extension to adult offenders were considered but not implemented under British rule, although a form of "probational release" or parole from longer prison sentences was introduced in the then province of Punjab in 1926.
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP) is a state agency that makes parole and clemency decisions for inmates in Texas prisons. It is headquartered in Austin, Texas.
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's reliance on a requirement that defendants show "additional evidence" to show substantial harm arising from incorrect sentencing guidelines is impermissible.
Lifetime probation is reserved for relatively serious legal offenders. The ultimate purpose of lifetime probation is to examine whether offenders properly maintain good behavior as well as capability of patience under lifetime probation serving circumstance. An offender is required to abide by particular conditions for rest of their entire life in order to nurture superior social behaviour as a punishment for their criminal offence. Condition of probation orders contain supervision, electronic tagging, reporting to his or her probation or parole officer, as well as attending counselling. The essential component of lifetime probation carries the sense of being examined for well-being character and behaviour for life term period. Legislative framework regarding probation may vary depending on the country or the state within a certain country as well as the duration and condition of probational sentencing.
1 2 Leanne F. Alarid and Carlos D. Montemayor (March 2010), Attorney Perspectives and Decisions on the Presentence Investigation Report: A Research Note, vol.21, Criminal Justice Policy Review, doi:10.1177/0887403409344166, S2CID144156296
↑ Fennel & Hall (1980). "Due process at sentencing: An empirical andlegal analysis of presentence reports in federal courts". Harvard Law Review. 93: 1616.
↑ Christopher P. Yates and Louise E. Herrick (May–Jun 2001), Going on Record: The Perils of Discussing Criminal History during the Presentence Interview, vol.13, Federal Sentencing Reporter
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
