Presentence investigation reports (PSIRs) are still used as an important component in some sentencing recommendations. Perspectives on the utility of the PSIR have typically focused on probation officers and less so on attorneys who use the document in plea negotiations and in sentencing recommendations. This study examines the importance of the PSIR for 57 prosecutors and 16 defense attorneys. Findings indicate that adult record, history of probation/parole, victim-impact statements, official version of offense, gang affiliation, and pending cases were viewed as important for prosecutors than for defense attorneys when preparing sentencing recommendations using the PSIR. Implications of these findings will be discussed.
Alarid, L.F., Hernandez, L.A., & Schloss, C. S. (2009). Utilization of community-based programs: Which sanctions do attorneys recommend? The Criminal Law Bulletin , 45, 642-665.
3.
Alarid, L.F., & Reichel, P.L. ( 2008). Corrections: A contemporary introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Alarid, L.F., & Schloss, C.S. ( 2009). Attorney views on the use of private agencies for probation supervision and treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 278-291.
5.
Alschuler, A.W. ( 1968). The prosecutor’s role in plea bargaining. University of Chicago Law Review, 36, 50-112.
6.
Barrett, B.S. ( 1992). Sentencing guidelines: Recommendations for sentencing reform. Missouri Law Review, 57, 1078-1116.
7.
Black, D.J. ( 1976). The behavior of law. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Black, D.J. ( 1980). The social organization of arrest. In R. J. Lundman (Ed.), Police behavior: A sociological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Bonnie, R.J., Poythress, N.G., Hoge, S.K., Monahan, J., & Eisenberg, M. ( 1996). Decision-making in criminal defense: An empirical study of insanity pleas and the impact of doubted client competence. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87, 48-62.
10.
Campbell, C., McCoy, C., & Osigweh, C. ( 1990). The influence of probation recommendations on sentencing decisions and their predictive accuracy. Federal Probation , 54, 13-21.
11.
Carman, G.W., & Harutunian, T. (2004). Fairness at the time of sentencing: The accuracy of the presentence report. St. John’s Law Review, 78, 1-14.
12.
Carter, R.M. ( 1967). The presentence report and the decision-making process . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4, 203-211.
13.
Carter, R.M., & Wilkins, L.T. ( 1967). Some factors in sentencing policy. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 58, 503-514.
14.
Circuit Court of Jackson County. (2008). 2008 Annual statistical report of the 16th Circuit, Jackson County, Missouri . Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.16thcircuit.org/Documents/Statistics/2008StatisticalReport.pdf
15.
Cohn, A.W., & Ferriter, M.M. (1990). The presentence investigation report: An old saw with new teeth. Federal Probation, 54, 15-25.
16.
Crowther, W.B. ( 1984). Criminal sentencing practices: Background information for policy makers (NCJ 093036). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
17.
Davis, R.C., & Smith, B.E. ( 1994). The effects of victim impact statements on sentencing decisions: A test in an urban settings. Justice Quarterly , 11, 453-469.
18.
Erez, E., & Rogers, L. ( 1999). Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes: The perspectives of legal professionals. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 216-239.
19.
Flemming, R.B. ( 1986). Client games: Defense attorney perspectives on their relations with criminal clients. Law and Social Inquiry, 11, 253-277.
20.
Foot, M.T., Stolberg, A.L., & Shepherd, R. ( 2000). Attorney and judicial perceptions of the credibility of expert witness in child custody cases. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 33, 31-45.
21.
Fruchtman, D.A., & Sigler, R.T. ( 1999). Private pre-sentence investigation: Procedures and issues . Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 157-170.
22.
Gelsthorpe, L., & Raynor, P. ( 1995). Quality and effectiveness in probation officers’ reports to sentencers. The British Journal of Criminology , 35, 188-200.
23.
Gilbert, M.J. ( 2005). Drug use and criminal behavior. In R. A. Wright & J. M. Miller (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology (Vol. 1A-G, pp. 446-453). New York: Routledge.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Gottfredson, D.M. (1987). Decision making in criminal justice: Toward the rational exercise in discretion (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
26.
Griggs, J.H. ( 2004). Targeting risk-related needs in the presentence investigation report to improve offender community reentry. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16, 188-193.
27.
Gross, S.Z. ( 1967). The prehearing juvenile report: Probation officers’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 4, 212-217.
28.
Heinz, A.M., & Kerstetter, W.A. (1979). Pretrial settlement conference: Evaluation of reform in plea bargaining. Law & Society Review, 13, 349-366.
29.
Hoelter, H. ( 1985). The private presentence report: Issues for consideration . The Prison Journal, 65, 53-59.
30.
Hoge, S.K., Bonnie, R.J., Poythress, N., & Monahan, J. ( 1992). Attorney-client decision making in criminal cases: Client competence and participation as perceived by their attorneys. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 385-394.
31.
Hughes, G., & Edwards, A. ( 2002). Crime control and community: The new politics of public safety. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing .
32.
Kingsnorth, R., Cummings, D., Lopez, J., & Wentworth, J. ( 1999). Criminal sentencing and the court probation office: The myth of individualized justice revisited. The Justice System Journal, 20, 255-273.
33.
Kramer, G.M., Wolbransky, M., & Heilbrun, K. ( 2007). Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: Evidence, strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 573-585.
34.
Lanier, M.M., & Miller, C.H. ( 1995). Attitudes and practices of federal probation officers toward preplea/trial investigative report policy. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 364-377.
35.
Lotz, R., & Hewitt, J.D. ( 1977). The influence of legally irrelevant factors on felony sentencing. Sociological Inquiry, 47, 39-48.
36.
MacDonald, S.S., & Baroody-Hart, C. (1999). Communication between probation officers and judges: An innovative model. Federal Probation, 63, 42-50.
37.
McDonald, W.F. ( 1979). Plea negotiation to coercive justice: Notes on the respecification of a concept. Law & Society Review, 13, 385-392.
38.
Mott, J. ( 1977). Decision making and social inquiry reports in one juvenile court. British Journal of Social Work, 7, 421-432.
39.
Mullany, J.M., & Peat, B. ( 2008). Process evaluation of a county drug court: An analysis of descriptors, compliance, and outcome-answering some questions while raising others. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 491-508.
40.
Norman, M.D., & Wadman, R.C. ( 2000). Utah presentence investigation reports: User group perception of quality and effectiveness. Federal Probation, 64, 7-12.
41.
Papandreou, N., McDonald, S.E., & Landauer, A.A. (1980). An experimental investigation of some factors influencing the pre-sentence report. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 13, 263-270.
42.
Rosecrance, J. ( 1988). Maintaining the myth of individualized justice: Probation presentence reports. Justice Quarterly, 5, 235-256.
43.
Rush, C., & Robertson, J. ( 1987). Presentence reports: The utility of information to the sentencing decision. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 147-155.
44.
Sarner, F. ( 1996). "Fact bargaining" under the sentencing guidelines: The role of the probation department. Federal Sentencing Reporter , 8, 328-330.
45.
Stinchcomb, J.B., & Hippensteel, D. (2001). Presentence investigation reports: A relevant justice model tool or a medical model relic? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 164-177.
46.
Stinson, V., Devenport, J.L., Cutler, B.L., & Kravitz, A. ( 1996). How effective is the presence-of-counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 64-75.
47.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Population estimates for selected counties in Missouri and Kansas. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/
48.
Vigorita, M.S. ( 2001). Prior offense type and the probability of incarceration: The importance of current offense type and sentencing jurisdiction. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 167-193.
49.
Walker, S. ( 1993). Taming the system: The control of decisions in criminal justice, 1950-1990. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
Walsh, A. ( 1985a). The role of the probation officer in the sentencing process: Independent professional or judicial hack? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 289-303.
51.
Walsh, A. ( 1985b). Extralegal factors in felony sentencing: Classes of behavior or classes of people? Sociological Inquiry, 55, 62-82.
52.
Weintraub, B.B. ( 1987). The role of defense counsel at sentencing. Federal Probation, 51, 25-29.
53.
Wheeler, S., Weisburd, D., & Bode, N. ( 1982). Sentencing the white collar offender: Rhetoric and reality . American Sociological Review, 47, 641-659.
54.
Wolf, T.J. ( 1997). What United States pretrial services officers do. Federal Probation, 61, 19.
