Talk:Presentence investigation report

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qwertygirl123. Peer reviewers: Jalapinata.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Information from Probation officer

I moved the entire section below my list of criteria from the probation officer article. I am not 100 percent comfortable with that portion since it does not cite sources. The information I have at the top cites sources. Americasroof 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of good info, but nearly as many uncited claims here. Is any effort being made to cite the information? Monkeybomber (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

RWilliamC (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)== Information in Lead section ==

It appears that the Lead section is a little light on information, in that it doesn't properly summarize all of the main points. Is there any work being done to better synthesize the information in this section? -Cw1120 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree - the Lead section doesn't provide a good introduction to what is discussed in the article. We should focus on including a more thorough outline of the information presented and improving the concision and clarity of the section. Books&coffee (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Edited the Lead section for conciseness, and removed redundant information. I also removed a citation from 1995, and intend to update the information with a more recent source. Next, I intend to include more recent, relevant sources in this section. I also plan to provide an overview of the information to be presented in the article. Books&coffee (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the critique of the Lead section. It still does not reflect general practices regarding how PSIRs are created or used. As someone who wrote them for years, I know that they are not typically used as charging documents, for example. Also, point allocation systems are not a fundamental feature of assigning PSIRs to probation officers. Would it make sense to stick with more general information, such as the fact that probation officers write them, that they are used at sentencing, etc., instead of some of the specific information currently included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RWilliamC (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Information on History

The description of the history of the topic is superficial at the best and really doesn't summarize the history of how the topic came about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfedil17 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Although I added some sentences on the history, a more in-depth discussion of how the report came to be needs to be present. -- Wiki811pedia (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I hold the same opinion on that. Although the origins of the PSIR is mentioned, there is not enough information on how the shift of the emphasis of the report occur and how did it present. Maybe it would be helpful to separate the content into three or four paragraphs and to cite more cases as explanations. Nana byun (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

adding a source: What is PSIR?

I found a really interesting source about PSIRs and I added some information and also cited! This can raise the credibility of the source since there is more info WITH citations.

Source:

 Fiftal Alarid, Leanne, and Carlos D. Montemayor. “Attorney Perspectives and Decisions on the Presentence Investigation Report: A Research Note.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 21, no. 1, Mar. 2010, pp. 119–133, doi:10.1177/0887403409344166.

Coffee1799 (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)coffee1799

It may be helpful to find more up-to-date sources! Many of the citations are over 10 years old and for the sake of clarity and accuracy, more recent sources may be best. Is anyone able to find a source like this?GK2000GK (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)GK2000GK (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

More sources are always a good thing. That said, the article is examining changes through the 70s and 80s and the sources in use are reflecting/discussing change with a distance of 20+ years. I feel like that's enough distance that I wouldn't scrap any of the sources already included. Even if some are obsolete, they can still be useful in developing the *history* section. --Civil Protection Team 9 (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

My biggest concern about the article is the lack of sources in the preparation, review of records, and writing and revision sections. To bring the conversation about PSIRs to the present (perhaps in the history section), the article might point to how statistical models are being included in PSIRs in some states that further eliminating the narrative aspect of the document. Julyattitude (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I found a source to cite the first paragraph of the preparation section, but I did not find the exact verbage that the article quotes, so I wouldn't feel comfortable citing this source without rephrasing the paragraph to match the source.

I also considered adding information about Caren Converse's study of the Lake County OPCA in regards to the the second paragraph of the preparation section, but she did not define the officers' workload as difficult, only offered info about their workload (20 cases per month).

Julyattitude (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Added further information to the history section

I added further information to the History page that I believe gives more context for John Augustus did what he did involving probation. He believed that people could get better and so he fought to allow those people to be allowed to change outside of the prison system.

Limitations Section

We changed the "controversy" section to "limitations" to reflect the scholarship from Caren Converse on the limitations of PEI as a genre. Controversy implies some kind of major public scandal or disagreement between scholars, but we didn't feel that was accurate to describe Converse's discussion of the issue. We rewrote the opening paragraph to summarize the major limitation, that being lack of objectivity by probation officers and how that impacts perception and subsequent sentencing of the accused. There is potentially more to be said about this using Converse as a guide.

--This source was also deleted as it was repetitive, but the article has several important elements that could add on to limitations of the PSI, especially concerning access: Fennell, Stephen A, and William N Hall. “Due Process at Sentencing: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of the Disclosure of Presentence Reports in Federal Courts.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 93, no. 8, 1980, pp. 1613–1697.Katlett (talk)

Adding a Scholar Section

Hello everyone, With the updating of information on this page, I think it would benefit us to have a scholarship perspective section. This would allow for authors like Caren Converse to share what they find. Also, as this concept morphs through time it can be built upon and consist of different perspectives. Just a thought.

Jalapinata (talk)