G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015 - MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM, Petitioner, v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Probation history
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message
of
His Excellency Manuel L. Quezon
President of the Philippines
To the First National Assembly
On Repeal of Probation Law

[Released on September 1, 1937]

The Probation System is one of the fruits of the progress that has been achieved in the field of
penology in recent years. It has proved to be not only humanitarian, but also an efficacious
method of reclaiming offenders whose previous conduct gives reasonable expectation that they
may become useful and worthy members of the community after they have been placed for
some time under the supervision of the proper authorities. Every enlightened community should
be guided in dealing with violators of the law, not by any desire to punish the offender n a spirit
of revenge, but with a view to the protection of society and for the correction of the offender
himself and the improvement of his own ways and outlook of life. In other words, I believe that
the objective of criminal laws should be not only to impose respect for laws on the part of the
citizen for fear of the consequences to his life or personal freedom, if for no other reason, but
also to make a useful and abiding man out of one who was once a harmful member of the
community.

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1937/09/01/message-of-president-quezon-on-
repeal-of-probation-law-september-1-1937/

ESTABLISHMENT
The concept of probation stems from faith in man’s capacity to change for the better and
in the ultimate good that will redound to society by rebuilding rather than destroying
those who have offended it.

Thus, as early as the thirteenth century, efforts were made to mitigate the harshness of
penal laws through more enlightened and rehabilitative approaches in the treatment and
correction of offenders. These included the release of accused members of the clergy to
ecclesiastical authorities, judicial reprieve or temporary suspension of sentence or
execution, deportation, and release on recognizance wherein a misdemeanant bound
himself before the court to “keep the peace and be on good behavior.” These practices
in early English Courts became the forerunners of probation which was later established
in England and the United States.
 In the Philippines, provisions for juvenile probation has been embodied in Article 80 of
the Revised Penal Code since its enactment in 1932. Thus, sentence was suspended
for offenders under 16 years of age accused of a grave or less grave felony, who were
then placed in the care and custody of public or private entities. This was amended on
December 10, 1974 by Presidential Decree No. 603, known as the Child and Youth
Welfare Code, and by Presidential Decree No. 1179 which set the age of minority to
below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Likewise, Republic
Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 provided for the suspension of
sentence and probation of a first-offender under 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense but not more than 21 years at the time when judgment
should have been promulgated.

 The move to integrate adult probation in the Philippine criminal justice system began
early in the twentieth century when the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 4221 on
August 7, 1935. This created a Probation Office under the Department of Justice, and
provided probation for first offenders 18 years of age and above who were convicted of
certain crimes. Unfortunately, there were defects in the law’s procedural framework so
that, on November 16, 1937, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the case
of People of the Philippines vs. Vera on the grounds of “undue delegation of legislative
power” and violation of the “equal protection of the law” clause.

 A second attempt was made when then Congressmen Teodulo C. Natividad and
Ramon D. Bagatsing introduced House Bill No. 393 during their last months in
Congress. Passed in the Lower House, this was pending in the Senate when Martial
Law was proclaimed in 1972.

The agitations for the adoption of an adult probation law continued. In 1973, the
technical staff of the Bacolod City Police Advisory Council, headed by Lt. Col. Arcadio
S. Lozada and assisted by US Peace Corps Volunteer Alvin L. Koenig, prepared a
proposed Probation Decree which incorporated pertinent provisions of the Natividad
and Laurel Bills. This was submitted to the Secretary of Justice and the National Police
Commission after a thorough perusal by a study committee of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and subsequent indorsement by its national Board of Directors.

 Late in 1975 the National Police Commission, sitting en banc and headed by Defense
Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile who was the concurrent Chairman of NAPOLCOM,      
heard the report “Meeting the Challenge of Crime” of the Philippine delegation to the
5th United Nations Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 1975. At that
time, the Philippines was among the few participating countries without an adult
probation system. Citing the role of probation in an integrated approach to crime
prevention, the delegation urged priority action on the establishment of the system. This
was the turning point that led to the passage of the law. The Inter-Disciplinary
Committee on Crime Prevention created in 1974 by Secretary Enrile and chaired by
Commissioner Teodulo Natividad, then pursued the preparation of the probation decree.
Eighteen technical hearings were conducted, attended by 60 resource persons, after
which the draft decree was presented at the Seminar on the Probation System
sponsored by the NAPOLCOM, Philippine Constabulary and Integrated National Police,
and the University of the Philippines Law Center on April 24, 1976. This was studied
and overwhelmingly endorsed by 369 participants representing various sectors of
society. A final draft of the decree was subsequently prepared, then reviewed and
endorsed to the President of the Philippines by the Minister of Justice, Minister of
National Defense, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

 Thus, the law was born on July 24, 1976. It was during the closing ceremonies of the
First National Conference on a Strategy to Reduce Crime held at Camp Aguinaldo,
Quezon City, that President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, in the presence of nearly 800
representatives of the country’s criminal justice system.

DEVELOPMENT
Under Executive Order No. 292, “The Administrative Code of 1987” which was
promulgated on November 23, 1989, the Probation Administration was renamed “Parole
and Probation Administration” and given the added function of supervising prisoners
who, after serving part of their sentence in jails are released on parole pardon with
parole conditions

Moreover, the investigation and supervision of First Time Minor Drug Offenders
(FTMDO)  placed under suspended sentence became another added function of the
Administration pursuant to Sections 66 – 70 of Republic Act 9165, “The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” and  by virtue of the  Memorandum of Agreement
between the Dangerous Drugs Board and  Administration dated 17 August 2005.
Likewise, pursuant to Section 57 of Republic Act 9165, the Administration was
designated as the authorized representative of the Dangerous Drugs Board under the
Voluntary Submission Program.

The Agency was placed in the forefront in relation to crime prevention, treatment of
offenders in the comunity-based setting, and in the overall administration of criminal
justice by mandating the revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide (VPA) Program
pursuant to Executive Order 468 dated October 11, 2005.

Under Republic Act No. 10389, “Recognizance Act of 2012”, the Administration was
directed to monitor and evaluate the activities of the person on release on
recognizance.

https://probation.gov.ph/establishment-development-probation-administration/

The History of Probation

Beginnings of Probation Services

The origin of probation can be traced to English criminal law of the Middle Ages. Harsh
punishments were imposed on adults and children alike for offenses that were not always of a
serious nature. Sentences such as branding, flogging, mutilation, and execution were common.
During the time of King Henry VIII, for instance, no less than 200 crimes were punishable by
death, many of which were minor offenses.

This harshness eventually led to discontent in certain progressive segments of English society
that were concerned with the evolution of the justice system. Slowly but resolutely, in an effort
to mitigate these inhumane punishments, a variety of measures were devised and adopted. Royal
pardons could be purchased by the accused; activist judges could refrain from applying statutes
or opt for a lenient interpretation of them; stolen property could be devalued by the court so that
offenders could be charged with a lesser crime. Also, methods such as benefit of clergy, judicial
reprieve, sanctuary, and abjuration offered offenders a degree of protection from the enactment
of harsh sentences.
Eventually, the courts began the practice of "binding over for good behavior," a form of
temporary release during which offenders could take measures to secure pardons or lesser
sentences. Controversially, certain courts began suspending sentences.

Birth of Modern Probation

 John Augustus, the "Father of Probation," is recognized as

the first true probation officer. Augustus was born in Woburn, Massachusetts in 1785. By 1829,
he was a permanent resident of Boston and the owner of a successful boot-making business. It
was undoubtedly his membership in the Washington Total Abstinence Society that led him to the
Boston courts. Washingtonians abstained from alcohol themselves and were convinced that
abusers of alcohol could be rehabilitated through understanding, kindness, and sustained moral
suasion, rather than through conviction and jail sentences.

In 1841, John Augustus attended police court to bail out a "common drunkard," the first
probationer. The offender was ordered to appear in court three weeks later for sentencing. He
returned to court a sober man, accompanied by Augustus. To the astonishment of all in
attendance, his appearance and demeanor had dramatically changed.

Augustus thus began an 18-year career as a volunteer probation officer. Not all of the offenders
helped by Augustus were alcohol abusers, nor were all prospective probationers taken under his
wing. Close attention was paid to evaluating whether or not a candidate would likely prove to be
a successful subject for probation. The offender's character, age, and the people, places, and
things apt to influence him or her were all considered.

Augustus was subsequently credited with founding the investigations process, one of three main
concepts of modern probation, the other two being intake and supervision. Augustus, who kept
detailed notes on his activities, was also the first to apply the term "probation" to his method of
treating offenders.

By 1858, John Augustus had provided bail for 1,946 men and women. Reportedly, only 10 of
this number forfeited their bond, a remarkable accomplishment when measured against any
standard. His reformer's zeal and dogged persistence won him the opposition of certain segments
of Boston society as well as the devotion and aid of many Boston philanthropists and
organizations. The first probation statute, enacted in Massachusetts shortly after this death in
1859, was widely attributed to his efforts.
Following the passage of that first statute, probation spread gradually throughout the United
States. The juvenile court movement contributed greatly to the development of probation as a
legally-recognized method of dealing with offenders. The first juvenile court was established in
Chicago in 1899. Formalization of the intake process is credited to the founders of the Illinois
juvenile court. Soon after, 30 states introduced probation as a part of the juvenile court
procedure. Today, all states offer both juvenile and adult probation.

Matthew Davenport Hill, a lawyer from England is also noted to have contributed to the
development of modern probation. Hill had witnessed the sentencing of youthful offenders to
one-day terms on the condition that they be returned to a parent or guardian who would closely
supervise them. When he eventually became the Recorder of Birmingham, a judicial post, he
used a similar practice for individuals who did not seem hopelessly corrupt. If offenders
demonstrated a promise for rehabilitation, they were placed in the hands of generous guardians
who willingly took charge of them. Hill had police officers pay periodic visits to these guardians
in an effort to track the offender's progress and keep a running account.

Probation in the United States

In the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, different practices were being developed.
"Security for good behavior," also known as “good aberrance,” was much like modern bail: the
accused paid a fee as collateral for good behavior. Filing was also practiced in cases that did not
demand an immediate sentence. Using this procedure, indictments were "laid on file" or held in
abeyance. To mitigate unreasonable mandatory penalties, judges often granted a motion to quash
based upon minor technicalities or errors in the proceedings. Although these American practices
were precursors to probation, it is the early use of recognizance and suspended sentence that are
directly related to modern probation.

Even with the wide use of suspended sentences, the U.S. Department of Justice disapproved of
its use, believing that it infringed upon executive pardoning power and therefore was
unconstitutional. The matter came before the Supreme Court in Ex parte United States, 242 U.S.
27. In what became known as the Killits decision, the Supreme Court in 1916 held that federal
courts did not have the power to suspend sentence indefinitely and that there was no reason or
right for the courts to continue the practice. The Supreme Court suggested probation legislation
as a remedy.

Establishing probation as a sentencing option in the federal courts did not happen quickly or
easily. Opinion on the wisdom of doing so was sharply divided. Some federal judges were for
probation, seeing it as an alternative to the sometimes harsh penalties they were compelled to
impose. Other federal judges were against probation, finding it too lenient. Congress could not
reach agreement on a national plan. The first bills for a federal probation law had been
introduced in Congress in 1909. But it was not until 1925--and after more than 30 bills had been
introduced--that one such bill became law.

The Probation Act of 1925, signed by President Calvin Coolidge, provided for a probation
system in the federal courts (except in the District of Columbia). It gave the courts the power to
suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place defendants on probation for such
period and on such terms and conditions as they deemed best. The Act also authorized courts to
appoint one or more persons to serve as probation officers without compensation and one
salaried probation officer. The first federal probation officer was appointed in 1927 in the
District of Massachusetts.
Initially, the administration of federal probation was the responsibility of the Office of the
Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice. Direct supervision fell to the superintendent
of prisons, who was also in charge of prison industries and parole. In effect, federal probation
officers answered to two authorities. Although the Attorney General set their salaries and
provided for expenses such as clerical services and travel, judges appointed them. This
arrangement changed in 1940, when general oversight of the probation system was transferred
from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Launch of Pretrial Services

In 1974 Congress enacted the Speedy Trial Act. Title II of the Act authorized the Director of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to establish "demonstration" pretrial services agencies
in 10 judicial districts. The goal was to reduce crime by persons released to the community
pending trial and to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention. The agencies were to interview each
person charged with other than a petty offense, verify background information, and present a
report to the judicial officer considering bail. The agencies also were to supervise persons
released to their custody pending trial and to help defendants on bail locate and use community
services. Five of the agencies were administered by the Administrative Office and five by boards
of trustees appointed by the chief judges of the district courts.

President Ronald Reagan signed the Pretrial Services Act of 1982. The Act authorized expansion
of pretrial services from the ten demonstration districts to every federal judicial district (except
the District of Columbia). It granted an 18-month evaluation period for each court to decide
whether to establish separate pretrial services offices or provide pretrial services through the
probation office. Consequently, each court chose the form of pretrial services organization that
best met its needs, considering such factors as criminal caseload and court locations. Expanding
pretrial services to all districts marked a significant milestone for what was now the "federal
probation and pretrial services system." Now officers were involved in the criminal justice
process from the time a person was arrested on a federal charge until he or she completed
community supervision

https://probation.smcgov.org/history-probation

What Should I Know

About the Pre-sentence
Investigation Report
(PSR)? (Chapter 7)
by Justin Paperny | Oct 30, 2020 | 1: Life Before Federal Prison, Justin Paperny, Prepare | 0
comments
What Should I Know About the
Pre-sentence Investigation
Report?
After a person pleads guilty or is found guilty, the presentence investigation report
(PSR) will be the next step. For more details, check out Rule 32 of the U.S. Rules of
Criminal Procedure in the federal system. Each state system has a similar rule in the
book of criminal procedure.
In federal cases, probation officers conduct the pre-sentence investigation report to help
sentencing judges and others evaluate the background of the person. The investigation
culminates with an all-important presentence investigation report (PSI or PSR—used
interchangeably). The pre-sentence investigation report will include recommendations,
based on guidelines and the probation officer’s opinion. Sentencing judges will consider
recommendations from the PSR when imposing sentence.
Besides the importance of the pre-sentence investigation report for sentencing, people
should pay close attention to the process because the PSR report also will play a
significant role in the person’s life if he is sentenced to federal prison. Information in the
pre-sentence investigation report influences how authorities classify the prisoner, when
he will be released, and what level of liberty he will have after he gets out of prison.

Pre-sentence Investigation Report:

To preserve rights and to self-
advocate once inside, it’s crucial to
understand everything about the
presentence investigation (PSI)
before it begins. Best-practice
preparations require a person to
invest the time and energy to
understand the process well before
the sentencing hearing, or even the
investigation begins.
If a defense attorney fails to stress the importance of the pre sentence investigation, be
wary. In federal prison, the pre-sentence investigation report will be the main document
administrators will use to make assessments, especially at the start of the journey.
• Case managers will use the document to consider the severity of the offense;
• Counselors will use the document to determine who can visit the offender;
• Educational administrators will use the PSR to determine whether the prisoner is
required to participate in programs;
• Psychologists will turn to the PSR to see whether the individual is eligible for beneficial
programs; and
• Medical personnel will turn to the PSR to determine whether the prisoner merits
medical attention
Once the court accepts the PSR, it’s virtually written in stone and it will follow the person
until his journey concludes.

Pre-sentence Investigation Report:

Beginning the Investigation:
The probation officer assigned to the case will begin the investigation by becoming
familiar with the government’s version of the offense. Then, the probation officer will
schedule a face-to-face. The meeting may take place at the person’s home, in the
probation office, over the phone, or in the facility holding the person if he’s in custody.
Prior to the meeting, the probation officer will have insight on the case from the
prosecutor and the investigators. The purpose of the meeting is to collect as information
from the person being investigated, if he’s willing to offer it.
The probation officer will ask the
person what he has to say about the
offense. He’ll also ask about the
offender’s personal background.
Among other things, the probation
officer will ask about:
• Family history,
• Education,
• Criminal background,
• Employment history,
• Substance-abuse background,
• Medical condition, and
• Financial status.
Anyone going through a pre sentence investigation should remember probation officers
are law-enforcement officers. If the probation officer believes the person lied, or
provided misleading information, or if he believes the offender tried to influence others
inappropriately, the probation officer may make things worse. The probation officer
could charge the offender with obstruction of justice if he believed the offender tried to
interfere with, manipulate, or subvert his investigation. With such a recommendation,
the judge may add additional time to a defendant’s sentence.
Probation officers have huge caseloads and it may feel as if they’re cynical. The
investigator will interview the offender’s family members, check the offender’s school
records, and obtain official records of the offender’s previous legal problems. The
probation officer also will speak with previous employers, check with creditors, and
search for information to verify the offender’s statements about his medical condition.
A person may reserve his right to remain silent during the pre-sentence investigation.
But if he chooses to communicate, he should understand that any lies or attempts to
mislead the probation officer could result in a longer or more severe sentence. We
recommend honesty and good preparation before the PSR interview.
Some people refuse to provide any information to the probation officer. They may have
valid reasons for wanting to remain silent. But if the person doesn’t participate in the
pre-sentence investigation report investigation, the probation officer’s writing will only
reflect the government’s version of events.
Appellate strategy may influence a person’s strategy. He may choose not to answer
questions about the offense. If that is the case, the offender should be courteous,
explaining that for appellate reasons, he cannot discuss the case. He may want to
cooperate with the investigation in ways that will not jeopardize his rights.
We recommend that unless the offender has good reason, he ought to cooperate with
the pre-sentence Investigation report investigation. In fact, we urge defendants to
prepare the sentence-mitigation strategy long before the PSR interview, and to provide
as much documentation as possible to the probation officer. By giving the officer the
personal narrative, the person makes the probation officer’s job easier. He may cut and
paste entire paragraphs or pages into the report. This strategy allows the person to
influence a document that will prove enormously influential while the person serves his
sentence.
The PSR will influence administrators that the prisoner may never meet. For example,
when making the initial classification of where a person serves the sentence,
administrators will rely upon the PSR. Others will use the PSR to determine who can
visit. On top of all that, the PSR will include information that determines whether the
person gets a lower-bunk pass, qualifies to participate in beneficial programs, and for
other crucial issues that can influence release dates.
Once inside prison, a Unit Team will meet with the prisoner. Administrators on the team
—case managers and counselors—will consider the PSR and the record a person
accumulates during his confinement.

For those reasons, prior to going

inside, people should invest time to
understand the myriad ways a PSR
will influence the prison term. Then
he can make a more competent
decision on whether to provide
more, rather than less information.
Those who’ve pled guilty should understand that the probation officer has the authority
to recommend a significant downward adjustment from the sentencing guidelines. If the
person convinces the officer that he provided a full and candid description of his criminal
actions and demonstrates genuine remorse for his criminal behavior, the officer may
recommend that the person gets credit for “acceptance of responsibility.” The probation
officer’s recommendation isn’t binding on the judge, but it is influential. People that
express remorse for their actions and persuade the court that their criminal behavior
was an aberration rather than a pattern of behavior or a criminal lifestyle usually receive
lower sentences than those who refuse to cooperate with the presentence investigation.
Likewise, those who choose to exercise their rights to silence may be portrayed as
unremorseful. Judges would likely take that into consideration at sentencing.

The PSI Report Itself:

Once the officer finishes the investigation, court rules require him to write his complete
report “in a non-argumentative style.” After describing the details of the offense and
other identifying data, a model PSI from the Southern District of New York contains
headings as follows.

Offense Conduct:
In this section, the probation officer writes the government’s version of events and may
describe discrepancies that the offender wanted inserted in the document.

Victim Impact Statement:

If the crime had an identifiable victim, the probation officer may give the victim an
opportunity to describe how the offense impacted him (or her).

Defendants’ Participation:
If the offender was convicted along with others in the offense, the probation officer may
detail the conduct of each defendant in the case under this heading. This can be
prejudicial, because some participants may be much more culpable than others.
Offenders ought to ask the attorney to challenge any information that suggests or
insinuates that he participated in the same behavior of others if he did not. Prison staff
members who evaluate an offender may not make any distinction between participants.
If the PSR indicates that one member of the offense was violent and predatory in
nature, that information may have a material influence on all members of the offense as
far as prison classifications are concerned.

Obstruction of Justice Adjustment

in PSR:
If the person obstructed justice in any way, the probation officer may recommend that a
sentencing enhancement. Examples of obstruction of justice include when an offender
tries to influence what others will say during a government investigation. If the offender
calls an individual and says, “Don’t talk, or else….” the officer may charge the individual
with obstruction of justice and with threatening violence. If so, prison administrators will
characterize the offender as being violent in nature, which will prohibit participation in
certain beneficial programs.

Acceptance of Responsibility
Adjustment:
If the offender is candid about his responsibility, the probation officer may recommend a
downward departure from sentencing guidelines. The level of the downward departure
will depend upon when the offender accepted responsibility. People that plead guilty
early in the criminal justice procedure receive the largest downward departures for
acceptance of responsibility. It’s a reward for saving the government the time and
expense of preparing for trial. Those who proceeded through trial will have a higher
burden to meet in order to receive this benefit. But going to trial does not necessarily
preclude a person from receiving this sentencing adjustment. Remember, the judge has
discretion, and it’s important to build an influential case on why you’re worthy of mercy.
Acceptance of responsibility can weigh heavily on the judge’s decision to grant mercy.

Offense Level Computation

Criminal statutes and guidelines influence this objective score. Offenders may read
about these scores by studying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual which is
available in all federal prison law libraries. Those who do not have access to prison law
libraries. They’re complicated to read for those that do not have a legal background.

Criminal History:
This information comes from past criminal convictions. Points are assigned to those
who have been convicted for other offenses, and each prior conviction counts against
the score. Chapter Four of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual explains how
probation officers count the points.

Offender Characteristics:
Probation officers use this section to describe what he learned about the offender
through his presentence investigation. It’s a subjective description. The offender’s family
responsibilities also will be discussed as well as the offender’s community ties.
If the offender engineered a sentence-mitigation strategy earlier, he may want to share
his personal narrative during the PSR interview. Probation officers may cut and paste
parts of the narrative into this section. That strategy can prove extremely useful to the
person as he goes through the system, both in sentencing and while in prison.

Substance Abuse:
This section describes whether the person suffered from any substance abuse
problems in the past. It is an extremely important section. In the federal prison, the BOP
has authority to reduce a person’s by as much as 12 months if the offender completes a
500-hour drug treatment program during his incarceration. To qualify for this year off,
the BOP will require the offender to provide documentation that he suffered from
substance-abuse prior to imprisonment. The substance-abuse section of the PSI report
is excellent place to document a history of drug abuse or alcoholism that would benefit
from treatment.
If a person reveals during the PSR investigation that he suffered from problems with
alcohol, that he smoked marijuana, or that he used other drugs, that statement may
qualify him to participate in a drug-treatment program. If he completes the program
successfully, he may get out of prison earlier.
People that do not understand the PSR sometimes conceal their history of substance
abuse. They mistakenly believe it will reflect badly on them at sentencing. Hiding one’s
history of substance abuse can limiting access to beneficial programs.

Physical Condition:
Here the probation officer describes health problem sor medical conditions. If the
person suffers from a bad back, has weak knees, or any ailments that may have an
impact on his ability to climb onto a top bunk or perform certain duties, he should detail
those ailments. If the probation officer documents health conditions in the PSR, it may
influence housing assignments.
If possible, it’s helpful to get a letter from a physician and medical records. Good
preparation includes documentation to support a medical condition. That documentation
can help a prisoner self-advocate once his term of imprisonment begins. For example, a
doctor’s letter verifying a bad back or weak knees will help an offender secure a coveted
lower-bunk pass. That pass can be a blessing for an individual who lacks the strength to
climb onto a top bunk.

Education and VT Skills:

The probation officer will ask about education and credentials. To avoid complications,
help the probation officer get the information necessary to confirm diplomas and
degrees. Administrators in prison will require those that do not have a verified high
school education to attend prison-sponsored GED courses for at least 240 hours. They
will receive lower wages from their prison work details. Participation in GED classes
may have an impact on an ability to earn good time or earned time.
Prison administrators frown upon prisoners who have extensive computer experience. If
the PSR indicates that an individual has computer programming skills, administrators
may deny that individual access to coveted clerical jobs by placing computer ban on his
file. Some people have been denied camp placement because of their knowledge of
computers and wireless networks.

Employment Record:
Probation officers will check with prior employers to obtain an evaluation of the person’s
work habits. A good work history may influence the sentencing judge. Also, an
extensive work history may help a person advocate for himself if he is seeking a specific
job in the prison.

Financial Condition:
Consider all financial liabilities and responsibilities when meeting with the probation
officer who is preparing the report. Most criminal convictions result in monetary fines or
restitution orders. All felony criminal convictions result in criminal-assessment fees.
Recently, sentencing courts have been imposing cost-of-confinement fees.
Sentencing judges may choose not to impose fines and cost-of-confinement fees if the
person is incapable of paying. Judges are less forgiving when it comes to restitution,
and the law may require them to impose assessment fees.
If the court imposes a monetary penalty, BOP staff members will demand monthly
payments. They will consider any funds that pass through the offender’s commissary
account as being available for such payments. These charges can make life more
difficult inside.
If a criminal fine becomes part of one’s sentence, the offender’s attorney ought to ask
the judge to specify that the fine is not to be collected until after the offender’s release
from confinement. If the judge’s commitment order specifies that the offender doesn’t
have to pay until he is released, the BOP will not be able to harass the person for
money during confinement.

Sentencing Options:
The probation officer discusses options the judge may consider when imposing
sentencing. The options are rather limited in that they only offer a monetary fine,
probation, or incarceration in some form—either house arrest, a community confinement
center, or imprisonment. Many crimes, particularly offenses related to the distribution of
drugs, require mandatory-minimum sentences that preclude sanctions less than
imprisonment. One can develop a better understanding of federal sentencing options by
reading the most current edition of the very detailed Federal Sentencing Law And
Practice by Thomas W. Hutchison, et al, and published by West Group.

Factors that May Warrant Departure

from the Sentencing Guidelines:
In the federal system, judges must consider sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are
not mandatory, but most judges use them as a starting point. If the judge chooses to
depart from established guidelines for a specific offender, the judge must articulate his
reasons during the sentencing hearing.
The probation officer will describe factors that may warrant either a downward or
upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The most common downward
departure is when an offender cooperates with the government in the investigation and
provides assistance in the prosecution of others. People that place the highest value on
getting out of prison at the soonest possible time may choose to cooperate with
prosecutors. Such decisions may influence where a person serves his time, and
whether that person is ostracized by others in prison.
In rare instances, probation officers may recommend downward departures for other
reasons. They may find that a person’s situation is markedly different from others that
were convicted of the same type of offense. It is a high burden, but in rare cases,
people receive downward departures for issues other than cooperating in the
prosecution of others.
Upward departures are more common. Judges issue sentences that are harsher than
the guidelines when they’re convinced that the sentencing guidelines do not reflect the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct.

The Completed Pre-sentence

Investigation Report:
Following the completion of the PSR, the probation officer will deliver copies of the
report to the prosecutor and the offender’s attorney. Both parties will have time to
review the document. If inaccuracies appear, each party will have an opportunity to
object to the perceived errors. Once the objections are noted, the probation officer will
determine whether the objections are valid. If so, changes to the PSR will follow. In
most cases, the PSR remain as originally written.
If the probation officer refuses to make changes that either party wants, that party can
bring the matter up with the sentencing judge. The judge will listen to both sides and
each side may present evidence to bolster its position. After hearing the arguments, the
judge will make a determination. Sometimes, though, the judge may sentence the
offender according to his findings at the hearing, but not order changes to the written
PSR.
Defense attorneys should be vigilant in efforts to get a pre-sentence investigation report
that accurately reflects the judge’s findings. The BOP will use the PSR for classifications
and to make other decisions, which can have a huge influence on how and where the
person serves the sentence.
Justin Paperny
https://www.whitecollaradvice.com/what-should-i-know-about-the-pre-sentence-investigation-report-
chapter-7/