Maintaining the Myth of Individualized Justice (From Administration and Management of Criminal Justice Organizations: A Book of Readings, Second Edition, P 420-438, 1994, Stan Stojkovic, et al, eds. -- See NCJ-161200)

• NCJ Number: 161208
• Author(s): J Rosecrance
• Date Published: 1994
• Length: 19 pages
• Sale Source: Waveland Press, Inc.
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This analysis of processes used by probation investigators to prepare presentence reports indicated that probation officers tended to de-emphasize individual defendant characteristics and that probation recommendations were not directly influenced by such factors as sex, age, race, socioeconomic status, and work record; instead, probation officers seemed to emphasize such variables as current offense and prior criminal record.

Abstract

Data were obtained from interviews with probation officers during two 3-week periods in 1984 and 1985 in two medium-sized California counties. Both jurisdictions were governed by State determinate sentencing policies. In each jurisdiction, the district attorney's office remained active during sentencing and generally offered specific recommendations. It was found that probation officers used current offense and prior criminal record as guidelines to classify defendants early in the investigation. When the classification process was complete, probation officers had essentially decided on the sentence recommendation. The type of information contained in the final presentence report was generated to support the original sentence recommendation decision. The presentence interview did not significantly alter probation officer perceptions. Implications of the findings for probation officer autonomy and the efficacy of existing and the efficacy of existing presentence investigation practices are discussed. 51 references and 7 footnotes