Most research on the criminal justice system has tended to neglect the presentencing processes whereby probation officers conduct presentencing investigations. This article uses discourse and textual data, in conjunction with ethnographic data, to examine how probation officers routinely accomplish these investigations. Probation officers confront three major tasks in conducting such investigations: eliciting, interpreting, and utilizing information. The accomplishment of each task requires that probation officers articulate or link existing knowledge categories with information that emerges during interviews with defendants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ALLEN, H.
, P. FRIDAY, J. ROEBUCK, and E. SAGARIN (1981) Crime and Punishment. New York: Free Press.
2.
BERNSTEIN, I. N.
, W. KELLY, and P. DOYLE (1977) “Societal reactions to deviants: the case of criminal defendants.”Amer. Soc. Rev.42 (October): 743-755.
3.
BORIS, S.
(1979) “Stereotypes and dispositions for criminal homicides.”Criminology17, 2: 139-158.
4.
CARTER, R.
(1967) “The presentence report and the decision-making process.”J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency4, 2: 203-211.
5.
CARTER, R.
and L. WILKINS (1967) “Some factors in sentencing policy.”J. of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Sci.58 (December): 503-514.
6.
CHIRICOS, T.
and G. WALSO (1975) “Socioeconomic status and criminal sentencing: an empirical assessment of a conflict proposition.”Amer. Soc. Rev.40, 6: 753-772.
7.
CICOUREL, A.
(1980) “Three models of discourse analysis: the role of social structure.”Discourse Processes3, 2: 102-132.
8.
CICOUREL, A.
(1978) “Language and society: cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of language use.”Socialwissenschaftliche Annalen Band2: B25-B58.
9.
CICOUREL, A.
(1975) “Discourse and text: cognitive and linguistic processes in the study of social structure.”Versus: Quaderni di Studi Semiotica (September/December): 33-84.
10.
CICOUREL, A.
(1968) Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York: John Wiley.
11.
COHEN, L.
and J. KLUEGEL (1978) “Selecting delinquents for adjudication: an analysis of intake screening in two juvenile courts.”J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency16: 143-163.
12.
COLE, G.
(1970) “The decision to prosecute.”Law and Society Rev.4: 331-343.
13.
CORSARO, W.
(1982) “Something old and something new: the importance of prior ethnography in the collection and analysis of audiovisual data.”Soc. Methods and Research11, 2: 145-166.
14.
DEMBO, R.
(1972) “Orientations and activities of parole officers.”Criminology10, 4: 193-215.
15.
ELION, V.
and E. MEGARGEE (1979) “Racial identity, length of incarceration, and parole decision-making.”J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency16: 232-245.
16.
EMERSON, R. M.
(1969) Judging Delinquents. Chicago: Aldine.
17.
GLASER, B.
and A. STRAUSS (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
18.
GROSS, S.
(1967) “The prehearing report: probation officers' conceptions.”J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency4, 2: 212-217.
19.
HAGAN, J.
(1977) “Criminal justice in rural and urban communities: a study of the bureaucratization of justice.”Social Forces55, 597-612.
20.
HAGAN, J.
(1975) “The social and legal construction of criminal justice: a study of the presentencing process.”Social Problems22, 5: 620-637.
21.
KLOCKARS, C.
(1972) “A theory of probation supervision.”J. of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Sci.63, 4: 550-557.
22.
MATZA, D.
(1964) Delinquency and Drift. New York: John Wiley.
23.
OHLIN, L.
, H. PIVEN, and D. PAPPENFORT (1956) “Major dilemmas of the social worker in probation and parole.”National Probation and Parole Assn. J.2: 211-225.
24.
PETERSON, D.
and R. FRIDAY (1975) “Early release from incarceration: race as a factor in the use of schock probation.”J. of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Sci.66, 1: 79-87.
25.
SPENCER, J.
(1983) “Accounts, attitudes and solutions: probation officerdefendant negotiations of subjective orientations.”Social Problems30, 5: 570-581.
26.
SUDNOW, D.
(1965) “Normal crimes: sociological aspects of the penal code.”Social Problems12, 3: 255-276.
