Unit 2 Seminar

Jeff Collins

Sentencing and the Presentence Investigation Report

An offender can best learn how to live productively in a community by remaining in free society under supervision, as opposed to being transferred to the warehouse-like setting of a jail or prison.

Goals include: Reduction or elimination of sentencing disparity Increased judicial accountability Increased punishment for violent offenders A basis for population projections and resource

allocation Presumptive sentencing grids require judges to use the

guidelines and provide written reasons for any deviation. Voluntary sentencing guidelines are suggestions that

judges may or may not accept. North Carolina has incorporated classes of crimes eligible

for community corrections into the guidelines.

Sentencing commissions exist at the federal level and in about half the states, and monitor the judicial use of the guidelines.

The commissions are responsible for evaluating and revising the guidelines as appropriate.

Standard Conditions are imposed on all persons with community sentences regardless of the offense.

Special Conditions are in addition to standard conditions and are tailored to fit the problems and needs of the offender.

Obey all federal and state laws and municipal ordinances

Follow all directives of the supervising officer Report regularly to the probation officer Obtain permission from the probation officer before

changing residence or employment, or leaving the jurisdiction

Limitations of special conditions Must be clear and specific Must be reasonable Must either protect society or rehabilitate the

offender Must be related to the offense of conviction

Supervision conditions must be constitutional. When fundamental constitutional rights are limited

or infringed upon by a condition of probation, the government must establish a “compelling state interest” that would justify keeping the condition.

First Amendment rights of religion, speech, assembly, press, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances are considered basic, fundamental rights.

A.A. meeting attendance as a condition of probation was ruled unconstitutional on religious grounds.

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not as highly protected for probationers as other constitutional rights.

In Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search of a probationer’s home is valid as long as reasonable grounds exist.

In McKune Warden v. Lile (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a sex offender treatment program inside a Kansas prison that required an acknowledgement of all prior sex offenses does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.

The PSI is a document prepared by a probation officer to aid judges in the sentencing decision, and: Is used by prosecutors, defense attorneys, parole boards

and probation and parole officers Describes the nature of the offense, offender

characteristics criminal history, loss to the victim and sentencing recommendations

Offender-Based PSI Reports (1920s-1980s) were: focused on rehabilitation utilized an indeterminate sentencing structure

Offense-Based PSI Reports (1980s-Present): focus on the crime committed utilize a determinate sentence structure

A Victim Impact Statement is required in all federal PSIs and some state PSIs. Includes physical injuries and emotional and psychological toll

on victim and victim’s family. A breakdown of the victim’s financial costs that were

not covered by the victim compensation fund are also provided.

The PSI is ideally prepared after adjudication of guilt, but before sentencing.

The PSI process consists of: The initial interview Investigation and verification The evaluative summary The sentence recommendation

Disclosure – limited to defendant, attorneys Inaccuracies – error must be harmful Hearsay – may be permitted The Exclusionary Rule – does not apply The Miranda Warning – is not triggered The right to a lawyer – is neither required nor

prohibited by U.S. Supreme Court

Appointment System

Jurisdictions that appoint probation officers have a judge or selection committee that appoints a chief probation officer.

The Chief selects assistants subject to the approval of the advisory body.

Salary scales are fixed.

Merit or civil service systems were developed to remove public employees from political patronage.

Applicants who meet minimum employment standards are required to pass a competitive exam.

People who score above a specified minimum grade are placed on a ranked list. Candidates are selected from the list according to their order of rank.

Most adult probation and parole officers must have a minimum of a bachelors degree.

Traditionally, probation officers were recruited out of the social work and psychology fields.

A preference has emerged to recruit individuals with degrees in criminal justice, criminology, and sociology.

Combined probation and parole offices require an average of 208 hours of preservice training

Separate offices require less hours of training

Training topics include numerous topic categories and courses (Look at Table 6.1 in the text on page 143).

Those states where officers carry firearms require completion of Peace Officer State Training (POST).

The American Correctional Association recommends that juvenile probation officers receive 40 hours of preservice training.

The American Bar Association suggests 80 hours of preservice training with an additional 48 hours within the first six months.

Reddington and Kreisel found that 20 states certified juvenile probation officer positions with an average of 100 hours of preservice training.

In-service training is continuing education training that occurs annually for seasoned officers following the first year of employment.

The American Correctional Association recommends that seasoned officers receive 40 hours of annual training.

40 hours is the most common requirement for adult officers and 30 for juvenile officers.

Based on the positions advertised nationwide in 2009 (www.payscale.com), an entry level probation officer or correctional treatment specialist with less than one year of experience can expect a median salary of $32,859.

5 to 9 years = median of $37,843

10 to19 years = median is $43,456

20 years or more = median is $56,000

Probation and parole administrators earned considerably more than field officers.

The average salary for parole administrators was $161,435.

Probation administrators received $101,109.

For combined departments, probation and parole administrators earned an average of $84,442.

In October 2006, 35 adult probation jurisdictions and 40 adult parole jurisdictions carried firearms (APPA).

In the juvenile system, 13 states allow firearms for officers, 2 give officers the option and 7 narrow firearms to only certain counties.

In the federal system, 85 of 94 judicial districts allow officers to carry weapons.

Those opposed to officers carrying a firearm question whether the threat to probation officers is real or perceived.

Officer’s safety or life may be at greater risk if a probationer or parolee is carrying a weapon

Early study found that probation officers who carried a firearm experienced more confrontation incidents

Officer confrontations have greatly decreased as officers pay more attention to safety issues by conducting home visits in pairs, wearing body armor, and training in self-defense techniques.

Not all officers want to carry a firearm. Options include chemical agents, stun guns, pressure points training, and field visits with two officers.

Advocates of officers carrying firearms contend that as officers are expected to make more late night home visits and be present out in the field, their time away from the office diminishes, as does their safety.

Probation officers in specialized units who

supervise gang members and violent offenders have been the most assertive.

Sources of stress: Excessive paperwork Inadequate salary Lack of promotional opportunity Lack of time to accomplish the job Role ambiguity Role conflict Lack of participation in decision-making Court leniency Failure to recognize accomplishments

As state and local governments look to trim costs in their budgets, they have increasingly turned to private companies for a wide array of services from drug testing to electronic monitoring.

At least 18 states currently use the private sector for some form of supervision, 10 of whom rely on private agencies for the sole responsibility of supervising misdemeanor and low-risk clients.

Regulating the private sector has generally been slow, with some jurisdictions operating in the grey area of unclear or non-existent standards for awarding contracts to private providers, staff hiring requirements, and curriculums for outpatient treatment services.

Critics of privatization say that the need to provide effective correctional services seems to be at odds with the prerequisite of making a profit for the business.

Private sector probation is seen as intruding and competing with the government’s traditional and ultimate responsibility to carry out punishment in a fair manner (Bosco 1998).

The private sector is usually not equipped to be a full-service organization and only take low-risk offenders. Private-sector services have no uniform method of monitoring probation conditions or ensuring that victim restitution is collected.

Any Questions?

Have a great Thanksgiving!