Presentence Investigation Report
Offense-based sentencing has been for a while the consistent trend in justice systems in most countries. However, with the gradual presentation of challenges in the sentencing of criminals, the presentence investigation report was introduced to revamp the justice system (Kyle Cook, 2014). The PSIR is an investigation into the history of an offender before the final hearing to influence the sentencing in terms of enhancing the sentence or increasing its harshness. (Fifty; Montemayor, 2010) give a range of benefits accrued from formulating the PSIR, most important one being the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offender. Based on potential extenuating circumstances reported by the PSIR, the judge can conclude a reduced sentence from the norm. Still, if the PSIR reports a long history of criminal behavior, the judge will be inclined to increase the sentence. Secondly, the PSIR influences the correction institution; the offender will be sent to serve their sentence in case of a need for specific correctional programs. In addition, the PSIR is used by the judge to determine the release date and by a probation officer to evaluate the needs of ex-convicts and the risks that might instigate a repeated offense.
The procedure of formulating a PSIR varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that determines the amount of time and how much information is to be reported to the court. However, (Kyle Cook, 2014) states that the process starts with a review of the records from different agencies, including law enforcement like the FBI (Ellis A., 2014) and previous parole reports. Then an interview with the defendant follows. The process comes to a close with information gathering from other persons and the actual report’s writing. This process takes time, and sometimes the officers mandated with the investigation can have multiple cases at the same time, making deadlines challenging to meet. Be it as it may, I regard the effort and time used worth it, especially if caution is taken to distinguish facts from opinions and only give a record of accurate information.
According to (Roberts; Manikis, 2010), a victim impact statement informs the PSIR of the defendant’s point of view, which goes a long way in determining the criminal history of the suspect and how one regards their mental and emotional health as far as committing the crime goes. This statement can initially be recorded in the court by order of the judge, and in this case, it serves to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the offender. The PSIR is a direct inquiry into the offender’s past, which is best known to the offender himself. Therefore, personal inquiries into a family, finances, past relationships, education, and employment can be best reported by the offender himself through the victim impact statement (Roberts; Manikis, 2010). However, caution is taken to establish corroboration before including the information on the victim impact statement on the final writes up of the PSIR.
The probation officer’s report is an essential working document in the administration of justice. That is why the recommendations in the report are highly co-related with the judges’ actual sentences. These recommendations form the basis for the correctional and releasing procedure and mostly form the PSI report. The probation officer comes from the community, and better know relationships and risks surrounding the offenders, especially if it is a repeated offense. Therefore, such information as personal characteristics, financial conditions, and social conditions required by the court can best and accurately be presented by the probation officer who, in addition to knowing the circumstances surrounding the offenses, did a vigorous investigation.
The presentence investigative report goes a long way in helping unclog decisions by the jury or the judge. However, the report has been known to misinform the court by insisting on hearsay rather than factual information. Therefore, caution should be taken, and corroboration insisted upon distinguishing the personal opinions of community members towards the offender from facts and proof-able information. On the other hand, (Fiftal; Montemayor, 2010) insist that the PSIR can be revised to desist from including past offenses gone stale or closed to prevent wastage of time in court over ‘ad hoc mini-trials.’
References
Ellis, A. (2014). Federal Presentence Investigation Report. Crim. Just., 29, 48.
Fiftal Alarid, L., & Montemayor, C. D. (2010). Attorney perspectives and decisions on the presentence investigation report: a research note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(1), 119-133.
Kyle Cook, A. (2014). Presentence investigation report. The encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice, 1-5.
Roberts, J. V., & Manikis, M. (2010). Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The relevance of ancillary harm. Marie Manikis (with Julian V. Roberts), “Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The Relevance of Ancillary Harm”(2010), 15(1), 1-29.