ODE TO THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT OWED TO THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT - AUSTRALIA

• NCJ Number: 63333
• Author(s): C R FOLEY-JONES
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 27 pages
• Corporate Author: Western Australia Dept of Corrections
• Sale Source: Western Australia Dept of Corrections
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: Australia
• Note: NO 13 IN THE DEPARTMENT'S RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SERIES PRESENTED AT AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY SEMINAR ON PRE-SENTENCE REPORTS, CANBERRA, ACT (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY), SEPTEMBER 20-24, 1976

Annotation

A PSYCHOLOGIST WITH THE AUSTRALIAN CORRECTIONS SYSTEM DISCUSSES PRESENTENCE REPORTS AND THEIR IMPACT ON SENTENCING PROCESSES.

Abstract

CITING SEVERAL RESEARCH STUDIES, THE PAPER DESCRIBES THE TREND BACK TO DETERMINATE SENTENCING IN THE UNITED STATES. EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT PRESENTENCE REPORTS DO NOT AFFECT RECIDIVISM OR THE NUMBER OF CRIMINALS SENT TO PRISON. A CALIFORNIA STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRESENTENCE REPORTS TO COURT DISPOSITIONS FOUND THAT COURTS TENDED TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF PROBATIONS OFFICERS, BUT THAT BOTH GROUPS APPEARED TO BASE THEIR DECISIONS ON SIMILAR FACTORS. IN AUSTRALIA, PAROLE OFFICERS OFTEN TRY TO PREDICT WHAT THE COURT MIGHT DO AND THEN TAILOR THEIR RECOMENDATIONS ACCORDINGLY. PRESENTENCE REPORTS THAT SUGGEST APPROACHES TO REHABILITATION CAN BE EDUCATIONAL FOR THE JUDICIARY, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE DISCARDED. CRITICS CLAIM THAT PRESENTENCE REPORTS MAY CONTAIN INACCURATE INFORMATION THAT CAN PREJUDICE AN OFFENDER'S CASE. A REPORT CAN BE INFLUENCED BY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OFFENDER AND THE PAROLE OFFICER OR THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE OFFENDER. JUDGES SEEM TO REGARD PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PAROLE OFFICERS AS ABSOLUTELY IMPARTIAL AND IGNORE THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MIGHT BE PROMOTING PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS. ALTHOUGH PRESENTENCE REPORTS CONTRIBUTE TO INJUSTICES AND DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING, THEY DO PROVIDE A METHOD FOR ACHIEVING CHANGE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM. A COMPROMISE SOLUTION WOULD BE TO FIX SENTENCES WITHIN SPECIFIC LIMITS, BUT ALLOW THE JUDICIARY LATITUDE WITHIN THESE LIMITS TO CONSIDER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ARTICLE ALSO SUGGESTS THAT SENTENCING POLICIES BE COMPOSED BY AN INTERDISCIPLINARY BODY AND PERIODICALLY REVIEWED TO REFLECT PROGRESS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. CRITICISM OF THE PAROLE SYSTEM AND THE PRESENTENCE REPORT WILL PROBABLY INCREASE AND PAROLE OFFICERS SHOULD EXPLORE NEW AREAS FOR INVOLVEMENT, SUCH AS SERVICES FOR EX-PRISONERS AND COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (MJM)