Prior to my receiving the lengthy sentence for trafficking in cocaine, I sat with a probation officer for my presentence investigation. He interviewed me for several hours, then spoke with family members, friends, and others who could provide him with a sense of who I was as a young man. The purpose of the PSI was to help the judge as he deliberated over the appropriate sentence. As I recall, my probation officer recommended a term of 15 years.

Had I pleaded guilty to my crimes and accepted responsibility for the role I had in distributing cocaine, I likely would have received a sentence that would have kept me in prison for no longer than 10 years. As a first-time prisoner without a history of weapons or violence, I may have served even less than 10 years.

But I made different choices, and the consequences of my defiance in my early 20s have resulted in my serving much more time in prison. As Eddie, a criminal justice student stated in his comment, one theory for imposing long sentences on young offenders was that they would age out of crime. I suppose there is some truth that as a man matures, he develops a sense of values that makes him less likely to engage in crime than a younger man.

At the same time, when society locks a man in prison for decades at a time, that man becomes institutionalized. In other words, he becomes so immersed in the abnormal ways of the prison culture that when he concludes his sentence, the individual finds himself incapable of functioning in modern society. We can see these results in the high recidivism rates that numerous media outlets report.

Rather than measuring justice by the turning of calendar pages, I feel convinced that we need prison reforms that measure justice served by the objective efforts an offender makes to redeem his actions and to reconcile with society.

The post Measuring Justice Served appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Regardless of whether the judge relied upon the PSI report to influence his decision on the appropriate sentence for me, the report would have ancillary consequences to my life. As a prisoner, I would live under the authority of prison administrators. Unlike the judge, they would not have been privy to all the evidence prosecutors used against me during their trial. Prison administrators would rely upon my scheduled release date, and the information contained in my Presentence Investigation Report to determine my classification and program eligibility.

I received a 45-year sentence. The length of that sanction cannot help but prejudice people against me. They hear the length of time I’m serving and conclude that I must have been a horribly dangerous criminal. Yet the responses I gave during my PSI together with the probation officer’s findings influenced a PSI report that was favorable. That has made a huge difference in my prison experience and adjustment.

I was not trying to manipulate my probation officer when I gave my responses. At the time, I remember feelings of remorse, shame, humiliation, and disappointment. Rather than responding in an appropriate and responsible way to the charges against me, I had perpetuated a lie, mistakenly believing that I could escape the consequences of my actions.

During the few hours we spent together, and after evaluating a letter I wrote, and after considering what he had learned through his investigation, I think the probation officer presented my personality and background accurately. That PSI has played a role in persuading administrators to classify me in ways that allowed me to drop from high-security penitentiaries to minimum-security camps. It allowed me to participate in programs that have been beneficial to my adjustment.

The suggestions I have are incumbent upon the individual, not the process itself. The more the individual learns about the wide and long reach of the PSI, the more likely he will be to provide enough information for the probation officer to write a report that accurately reflects his background and personality.

Contact me today to learn more about how I can help with your presentence investigation report.  Visit prisonprofessor.com or michaelsantos.com to learn more.

The post My Reasons for Suggesting Defendants Learn More About PSI appeared first on Prison News Blog.

With regard to the presentence investigation, a booklet to explain the purpose of the report and the ways my responses to questions from the probation officer would influence my life would have proved helpful.

I am not certain that the PSI played a huge role in my judge’s sentencing decisions. He had listened to witnesses who had provided testimony against me during my trial and evaluated the merits of the government’s case. I assume he had an idea of what type of sentence he thought was appropriate.

Besides the sentence, however, the PSI would have an influence on the ways that prison administrators classify defendants. The PSI contains information that determines program eligibility, quarters and work assignments, visiting lists, even halfway house qualifications.

Not knowing the significance of the PSI, defendants sometimes evaded or provided untruthful statements to the probation officer. Such answers could lead to deleterious consequences, including longer sentences and more difficult prison adjustments. A booklet would help individuals understand how the responses they provided could influence both the PSI report and the prison experience.

Since I do not think the government would provide such a booklet, defense attorneys ought to encourage their clients to learn as much about the criminal justice process as possible. The more information individuals have, the better they could prepare themselves to navigate the turmoil successfully.

The post Suggestions to Improve The Presentence Investigation Process appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Generally speaking, the prisoners in minimum-security respond differently to their imprisonment than do those in higher-security prisons. Among the differences in adjustment patterns is a difference in attitudes and perceptions. Those who serve time in camps are more willing to accept responsibility. They want to move beyond the decisions that led them to prison and resume life as normal citizens in society. Such attitudes condition the men to express more acceptance in the fairness of proceedings. Those in camps were more willing to acknowledge that their Presentence Investigation Reports accurately represented them.

In higher-security prisons, the general rule was that prisoners felt targeted by the system. They expressed anger because the system seemed as if it was just one more institution that oppressed them. To those prisoners, the PSI was an accurate reflection of the prosecutor’s version of events. It was biased against the defendants, written in a tone that minimized the individual’s humanity and emphasized his criminality.

The different perceptions may be related to both class and educational levels. Those serving time in camps, generally, have higher education levels and they hail from more socially acceptable backgrounds. They may have had more access to counsel who explained the PSI, and they may have had more skills in expressing their interpretation of events. The more defendants cooperated with probation officers, the more likely the PSI report would reflect the defendant’s personality.

Higher-security prisons confine many more of the nation’s oppressed classes. Such individuals attribute the conditions of their lives to a system that practices unfairness at every level. The PSI represents one more example of society’s systemic pattern of oppression.

An individual’s interpretation of the PSI’s accuracy, then, relates to an individual’s perception of society and adjustment pattern in prison. The more an individual prepares for the PSI, it seemed that the more capable he was of influencing an accurate report.

The post Do Other Prisoners Feel They Received Accurate PSI Reports? appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Despite the guidance that a defense attorney might provide, I remain convinced that defendants would serve themselves well to learn as much about the presentence investigation as they can before they sit for the meeting. My interviews with people in prison have resulted in horror stories about how their ignorance of the presentence investigation resulted in longer prison terms and more difficult terms in confinement. As a consequence of their responses, some defendants I have met were charged with obstruction of justice, while others lost consideration for acceptance of responsibility because of their dissembling.

Some attorneys, on the other hand, invest the time necessary to prepare their clients for the presentence investigation. I spoke with one white collar offender who told me that his attorney spent four hours with him on the day before he was scheduled to meet with his probation officer. The attorney also accompanied him to the interview. Other defendants I’ve met with deep pockets have hired consultants to advise them on matters specific to the PSI and the report that follows the investigation.

Those who lack financial resources, however, frequently walk into meetings ill-equipped to respond to questions from their probation officer.

The post I was not prepared for my Presentence Investigation appeared first on Prison News Blog.

To complete his investigation, Todd spoke with other people who knew me. He spoke with all of my family members, with teachers from my high school, with people I suggested he contact. The background work Todd did allowed him to write a report that was as even-handed as a defendant could expect.

I don’t know what level of influence the report had on my sentencing judge. Todd’s PSI report recommended a 15-year sentence. My judge imposed a 45-year sentence. He obviously thought I needed more time in prison.

I haven’t had any contact with the probation officer since he completed my PSI, though I think he wrote an accurate report. Defendants who want their PSI reports to reflect their personalities and histories well ought to assist the probation officer during the presentence investigation by providing as much personal information as possible.

The post Did My PSI Accurately Reflect My History and Personality? appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Upon introducing himself, the probation officer explained the purpose of his visit. I participated in the PSI more than 21 years ago, so I don’t remember the exact sequence of events. I presume that before the probation officer asked me any questions, he likely recited my Miranda rights that gave me the option of remaining silent.

I spent a few hours with the probation officer and cooperated fully. A jury had convicted me and I was then convinced that I had made a disastrous choice with regard to my trial strategy. I had fallen under the influence of my unscrupulous attorney who had convinced me that with the right amount of money I could “win” my case. I should have accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty.

Because of my fragile state of mind, I eagerly responded to the probation officer’s questions. Somehow, speaking honestly about my crimes and my level of culpability in organizing the scheme to distribute cocaine felt therapeutic. Other defendants told me that they were concerned about the way that their responses would influence appeals or their standing before the court. Such perceptions persuaded those defendants to lie or provide less than truthful answers.

The presentence investigation is an important part of the criminal justice process. It can influence both the sentence received as well as the prison adjustment. I urge defendants to learn as much about the process as possible before they meet with the probation officer.

The post My Contact With the Probation Officer Who Prepared My PSI appeared first on Prison News Blog.

When I was coming into the prison system, back in 1987, I didn’t know anything about the criminal justice system. Instead of learning, I deferred to my attorney on all matters. The attorney who represented me told me that the judge who was going to sentence me likely had made his mind up with regard to how much time he was going to impose, and so the PSI was not all that relevant.

I will never know the level of importance my judge placed on the information contained in my PSI. Yet I do know that the PSI has played an essential role in my journey through more than 21 years of imprisonment. Prison administrators rely exclusively on the Presentence Investigation Report in making numerous decisions with regard to the inmate’s classification and program eligibility.

Not knowing the integral role the PSI plays through the prison journey, many inmates later regret the ways that they responded during the Presentence Investigation Report. In misguided efforts to influence the judge, many inmates provide answers that are only shades of the truth to their probation officers. Sometimes they lie. They do not understand the answers they provide to the probation officer’s questions can influence both the length of time they serve, and the conditions under which they serve their sentences.

The post Inmate Ignorance Regarding the Presentence Investigation appeared first on Prison News Blog.

When I participated in the presentence investigation with my probation officer, I was grateful for an opportunity to apologize for my actions. Up until that time, I had been under the spell of my previous attorney who had convinced me that the best approach was denial. I knew that I stood guilty of the criminal charges against me, yet my attorney persuaded me that with the right amount of money, I would prevail through trial. I was predisposed to accept such advice. After my conviction, however, I recognized the enormity of my error in judgment.

I did not know whether the PSI would influence my sentence. Even now, after more than 21 years of imprisonment, I do not know whether it played a role. The judge could have imposed a life term. My probation officer responded well to my expressions of remorse and recommended 15 years. Judge Tanner used his discretion and sentenced me to 45 years.

Although I do not know whether the PSI influenced my judge, the PSI has had an essential influence over my prison term. Prison administrators rely on the PSI extensively in classifying each prisoner. They rely upon the PSI to determine such issues as an inmate’s classification, housing status, work detail, program eligibility, visitation privileges, and halfway house placement. I did not know how relevant the PSI would be not only to my sentencing, but also to my entire journey through prison. I advise incoming prisoners to learn everything they can about the Presentence Investigation Report before they meet with their probation officers.

The post What I Knew About the Presentence Investigation Before Sentencing appeared first on Prison News Blog.

I was convicted of leading what was known as a Continuing Criminal Enterprise. I was 23-years-old at the time and I had never been incarcerated before. Nevertheless, my conviction provided for a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison, and a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

My sentencing judge was Jack Tanner. By the time Judge Tanner was ready to impose sentence, he had presided over my lengthy trial. Scores of witnesses had offered compelling testimony against me. Prosecutors presented a solid case that they predicated on testimony from several witnesses who had admitted to being a part of a conspiracy that I led. I perjured myself during the trial, telling bold lies form the witness stand in denial of my participation in the scheme to distribute cocaine.

My actions during the trial left Judge Tanner with an unfavorable impression as to the state of my character during my early 20s. He saw an unrepentant young man, grasping for any strategy that might absolve him of responsibility. Through the presentence investigation, I had an opportunity to give Judge Tanner a second look.

I have no way of knowing whether the responses I gave to my probation officer had a role in influencing Judge Tanner’s decision. The probation officer had come to speak with me in the jail within a few days of my conviction. By then, I had realized that I made some bad decisions with regard to the way I responded to my criminal charges. For the first time, I expressed remorse for my crimes and for my behavior during the trial. I vowed to work toward redemption.

The probation officer compiled a report that I thought was favorable, considering the predicament I had placed myself in. That report recommended a sentence of 15 years. Judge Tanner, however, used his discretion to impose a total term of 45 years. Since he had the authority to impose a life sentence, he may or may not have been influenced by the responses I provided to the probation officer and by the expressions of remorse I made in open court.

My own opinion has been that Judge Tanner imposed severe sentences for drug offenses, even in cases without weapons or violence. Had I not expressed remorse through my presentence investigation and in open court, I think Judge Tanner may have imposed the life term. As a prisoner, however, I will never know.

The post How the Presentence Investigation Report Influenced My Sentence appeared first on Prison News Blog.