NCJ Number
136369
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 55 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1991) Pages: 49-53
Date Published
1991
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the challenges faced by probation officers through an examination of the duties and tasks of presentence investigators prior to and after the implementation of Federal sentencing guidelines.
Abstract
Prior to passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the effective date of guideline sentencing, presentence reports prepared by probation officers were major sources of information on which courts based their sentences. Investigative efforts focused on traditional factors considered important in imposing sentences such as offense severity, harm to victims, offender motivation, prior criminal conduct, and offender social and personal history. Considered independent agents of the court, probation officers were encouraged to be the judge's "eyes and ears" for purposes of developing information for sentencing. The environment in which presentence investigators functioned fostered the preparation of reports compatible with the medical model of dealing with offenders and consistent with the broad discretionary authority and sentencing options enjoyed by the court. With the implementation of sentencing guidelines, discretionary sentencing was abandoned for a determinate model featuring fixed sentences without possibility of parole. To accommodate the sentencing process, the presentence format changed dramatically, primarily serving to record how facts are treated by the sentencing guidelines and to aid the court in making preliminary findings of fact. The probation officer's required knowledge base increased significantly and became considerably different from that required in the prior system. The probation officer now has to meet the challenges posed by the new sentencing model in the face of a resistant judiciary and defense bar and an increasing workload of presentence reports.