NCJ Number
32381
Journal
Suffolk University Law Review Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (FALL 1975) Pages: 49-75
Date Published
1975
Length
27 pages
Annotation
INTERVIEWS WITH JUDGES, PROBATION CHIEFS, AND PROBATION OFFICERS AND EXAMINATION OF PRESENTENCE REPORTS INDICATED THAT THE REPORTS ARE OFTEN NEITHER SUFFICIENTLY THOROUGH NOR ACCURATE FOR RATIONAL INDIVIDUALIZED SENTENCING.
Abstract
THIS DETERMINATION RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER BETTER USE COULD BE MADE OF AVAILABLE PROBATION RESOURCES BY THE EXERCISE OF SOME SELECTIVITY IN THE PREPARATION OF PRESENTENCE REPORTS. REPORTS ARE PREPARED IN EVERY FELONY CASE AND IN MOST APPEALS FROM MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS IN WHICH JAIL SENTENCES ARE IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. IT WAS THE AUTHORS' THESIS THAT SOME TYPES OF INFORMATION ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS FOR SENTENCING AND THAT SOME CASES REQUIRE MORE THOROUGH PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION THAN OTHERS. THEREFORE, THE JUDGES AND THE PROBATION OFFICERS WERE ASKED TO RATE THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRESENTENCE INFORMATION FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF CASES.