Criminal sentencing and the court probation office: The myth of individualized justice revisited

The "myth of individualized justice" thesis argues that while individualize d justice no longer exists in substantive form, the myth, institutionalized in the Pre-sentence Investigation Report (PSIR), endures because it perfor ms important latent functions for the court system. Utilizing a sample of c ases charged with felony sexual assault, this study revisits that thesis an d offers a revised conception of the PSIR. Major findings include: the prob ation officer was excluded from participation in sentencing by means of the waiver procedure in 23 percent of negotiated cases; probation officers sub mitted sentencing recommendations more severe than the plea in 29 percent o f their reports, judges rejected those recommendations in almost all instan ces; probation officers rely on the same sentencing values as prosecutors a nd judges in forming recommendations, and probation officers are viewed pos itively by judges and prosecuting attorneys but negatively by defense attor neys. We suggest that, in light of these findings, the probation officer is best seen as an "agent of the state," and the PSIR should be viewed as an instrument for the implementation of punishment values.