Based upon fifteen years of experience as a probation officer and qualitative interviewing of court personnel, I present an ethnographic account of decision-making processes used by probation officers in preparing presentence recommendations. Frequently, probation recommendations serve only to endorse prearranged judicial agreements. When actual decisions are required, the range of recommendations is generally encompassed within narrow parameters. Individual probation officers discern these informal parameters by responding to cues provided by (1) judges, (2) prosecuting attorneys, and (3) probation supervisors. When a recommendation seems likely to meet the approval of these three entities, it is deemed appropriate or “in the ball park.” The anticipatory nature of the ball park phenomenon seriously questions traditional concepts that sentencing judges “follow” probation recommendations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blumberg, A.
1967 Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle.
2.
Blumer, M.1979“Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data.”Soc. Rev.27: 651-677.
3.
Blumstein, A.
, J. Cohen, S. Martin, and M. Tonry 1983 Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Brewer, D.
, G. Beckett, and N. Holt1981“Determinate sentencing in California: the first year's experience.”J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency18: 200-231.
5.
Carter, R.1967“The presentence report and the decision-making process.”J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency4: 203-211.
6.
Carter, R.1972“The diversion of offenders.”Federal Probation36: 31-36.
7.
Carter, R.
1978 Presentence Report Handbook. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8.
Carter, R.
and L. Wilkins1967“Some factors in sentencing policy.”J. of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Sci.58: 503-514.
9.
Curry, P. M.1975“Probation and individualized disposition: a study of factors associated with the presentence recommendation.”Amer. J. of Criminal Law4: 31-81.
10.
Czajkoski, E.1973“Exposing the quasi-judicial role of the probation officer.”Federal Probation37: 9-13.
11.
Davis, J.1983“Academic and practical aspects of probation: a comparison.”Federal Probation47: 7-10.
12.
Fishman, R.
1977 “An evaluation of eighteen projects providing rehabilitation and diversion services,” pp. 45-76 in L. Radzinowicz and M. Wolfgang (eds.) Crime and Justice Vol. III. New York: Basic.
13.
Forer, L.
1980 Criminals and Victims. New York: W. W. Norton.
14.
Frazier, C.
and E. Bock1982“Effects of court officials on severity.”Criminology20: 257-272.
15.
Glaser, B.
and A. Strauss 1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
16.
Goldfarb, R.
and L. Singer 1973 After Conviction. New York: Simon & Schuster.
17.
Goldsborough, E.
and E. Burbank 1968 “The probation officer and his personality,” pp. 104-112 in C. Newman (ed.) Sourcebook on Probation, Parole and Pardons. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
18.
Gottfredson, M.
and D. Gottfredson 1980 Decision-Making in Criminal Justice: Toward the Rational Exercise of Discretion. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
19.
Hagan, J.1975“The social and legal construction of criminal justice.”Social Problems22: 620-637.
20.
Hagan, J.
, J. Hewitt, and D. Alwin1979“Ceremonial justice: crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system.”Social Forces58: 506-527.
21.
Hogarth, J.
1971 Sentencing as A Human Process. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
22.
Hood, R.1966“A study of the effectiveness of pre-sentence investigations in reducing recidivism.”British J. of Criminology6: 303-310.
23.
Jacob, H.
1970 “Trials, negotiations, and settlements,” pp. 41-55 in M. Summers and T. Barth (eds.) Law and Order in a Democratic Society. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
24.
Keve, P.
1967 Imaginative Programming in Probation and Parole. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
25.
Kingsnorth, R.
and L. Rizzo1979“Decision-making in the criminal courts: continuities discontinuities.”Criminology17: 3-14.
26.
Light, D.
and S. Keller 1982 Sociology. New York: Alfred Knopf.
27.
Lohman, J.
, A. Wahl, and R. Carter 1965 The San Francisco Project, A Study of Federal Probation and Parole. Research Report No. 5. School of Criminology, University of California.
28.
McHugh, J.1973“Some comments on natural conflict between counsel and probation officer.”Amer. J. of Correction35: 34-36.
29.
Murrah, A.
1963 “Prison or probation — which and why?” pp. 62-69 in B. Kay and C. Vedder (eds.) Probation and Parole. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
30.
Neubauer, D.
1974 Criminal Justice in Middle America. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
31.
Orland, L.
1973 Justice, Punishment, Treatment — The Correctional Process. New York: Free Press.
32.
Rovner-Pieczenik, R.
1978 The Criminal Court. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
33.
Scott, M.
and S. Lyman1968“Accounts.”Amer. Soc. Rev.33: 46-62.
34.
Shibutani, T.
1966 Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
35.
Sholnik, J.
1972 “Social control in the adversary system,” pp. 236-247 in G. Cole (ed.) Criminal Justice: Law and Politics. Worth Scituate, MA: Duxbury.
36.
Shover, N.1974“Experts and diagnosis in correctional agencies.”Crime & Deliquency20: 347-358.
37.
Spencer, J.1983“Accounts, attitudes and solutions: probation officer-defendant negotiations of subjective orientations.”Social Problems30: 570-581.
38.
Walker, H.
and B. Beaumont 1981 Probation Work. Critical Theory and Socialist Practice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
39.
Williams, R.
1979 “Plea bargaining in some of the largest cities in the U.S.,” pp. 341-350 in R. G. Iacovetta and Dae Chang (eds.) Critical Issues in Criminal Justice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
40.
Zastrow, W.1971“Disclosure of the presentence investigation report.”Federal Probation36: 20-22.
