00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Contact Us

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RHETORIC OF A JUDICIAL DOCUMENT: THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION, DOCUMENT DESIGN, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT by Barbara Bova Hamilton A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (English) May 1987 Copyright 1987 Barbara Bova Hamilton UMI Number: DP23119 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL U SERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p en d en t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely event that the author did not se n d a com plete m anuscript and there are m issing p ag es, th e se will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a note will indicate th e deletion. U M I* Dissertation Publishing UMI D P23119 Published by P roQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the D issertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © P roQ uest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S ta te s C ode ProQuest* ProQ uest LLC. 789 E ast E isenhow er Parkw ay P.O . Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK D LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90089 /h.U- £ H 2 / 9 3^7 This dissertation, written by Barbara Bova Hamilton under the direction of hfr*. Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements for the degree of D O C TO R OF PHILOSOPHY Dean of Graduate Studies April 28, 1987 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson ii To Bob iii Acknowledgments Because this work is an interdisciplinary study involving confidential documents and politically sensitive interviews obtained over a long period of time, it owes its existence to the extraordinary intellectual, pro fessional and emotional contributions of a large and diverse group of people. I want to thank all those who supported this project from the beginning, especially my director, Professor W. Ross Winterowd, and my other committee members, Professors Lawrence Green and Edward Finegan, whose advice and support at critical junctures helped move this study to completion. My special thanks to Dwight Stevenson for intro ducing me to the issues behind this work and to all the participants in this study: Detroit-area probation officers and judges, as well as the corrections adminis trators who provided guidance in the early stages, including Robert LeCureaux, George Agnello, Dan Fontella, and especially Marion Glaser, M.S.W., who remains for me the model of a dedicated professional. Her advice and counsel guided me through the complexities of the corrections bureaucracy and provided me with unfailing support. iv To all my colleagues in the Department of Rhetoric, Communication, and Journalism and other friends at Oakland University who kept the faith with me--especially my long-time friend Helen Schwartz, whose frequent messages of encouragement provided me with infusions of new energy— my special gratitude. I thank all my Detroit-area friends who called, invoked divine guidance, told jokes, made dinner for us— and understood when I couldn't reciprocate— especially the irreplaceable Karen and Charlie Weaver, Dian Wilkins and Bob Denewith, Barbara Carson and David, Noelle Houck and Michael Allen, Paula and Ron Brown, Kathleen and Mehmet Zeren. Thanks also to my friends around the country who provided encouragement, including Betty Bamberg, Tillie Warnock, Barbara Jean Lyman, Lynn Friedhoff Fiegenbaum, and Jill Wilson, who was there with me at the beginning. My special colleagues, Glen Bauer and Barbara Toth, were always reliable and available when I needed them. Linda Carney provided patient and reliable typing aid for which I am very grateful. Throughout this process, I have always counted on the support of a loving family, including my mother, Catherine Bova, as well as my sisters and brothers and V their families: Kathe Dyson; Dr. Rita Galusik; Pat Bova; Sally Basbas; Mary Sue Siciliano, R.N.; Dr. Steven Bova and David Bova. The memory of our father, Dr. George Bova, has inspired us all. The wonderful McGowan clan buoyed my spirits on many occasions. Special thanks to Dick and Dore, to Pat and Bill Wagner, Diane and Lee Tichenor, and to Aunt Dorothy and Uncle Harry Connor who provided many Sunday dinners for the L.A.-based Hamilton-McGowans. Finally, I want to thank my exceptional children, Jason and Lucy, whose lives have been shaped, in part, by memories of a mother pursuing a doctorate. They accompanied me on trips to the UCLA library, supporting my efforts even when they were too young to completely understand them. I really could not have done this without their good-natured understanding and unquestioning belief in me. The emotional center has held because of my husband, Bob McGowan, who has provided unflagging support and advice. He has endured cancelled vacations, a down sized social life and an oft-distracted spouse with uncommon style, grace and empathy that I will always remember. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................... iii Chapter One. Introduction ............................... 1 Two. Project Methodology ..................... 26 Rationale .......................... 26 Procedures................................. 36 Three. Data Evaluation I— the Presentence Investigation ............................... 48 Four. The Probation Officer Composes the Presentence Investigation: 1979-83 81 Background................................. 81 The Writer's Intention . ... . ............82 Evaluating Writing Skills . . ............ 90 Writing Samples ............ 94 Results: The Old Soldiers................. 98 Results: The Young Professionals ......... 136 Results: The Disaffected Probation Officer ................................ 192 Five. The Corrections Administrators ........... 205 Attitudes towards Probation Officers . . . 207 The Role of Administrators— Supervisors . . 215 Six. The Judge as Audience .............. 221 Seven. Findings, Conclusions and Implications . 245 Results . ...............................247 Discussion................................ 261 Implications ............................. 267 vii Appendices .......................................... 271 A. Challenges to the Code of Legal Discourse . . 271 B. 1956 Procedure Statement..................... 274 C. 1980 Procedure Statement..................... 283 D. 1983 Procedure Statement..................... 299 E. Dictator's Guide to Writing the Procedure Statement ............................ 307 F. Sample Presentence Investigations ........ 314 Bibliography ....................................... 331 1 Chapter One Introduction The language of the law has often served to insulate the court from its constituents. Satirized for its obscurity and opacity, legal language has been described as a "code which simultaneously serves the functions of both communication and non-communication, of precision and impenetrability" (Goodrich 90; see Appendix A for further discussion of legal language). During the past two decades, however, many citizens have grown intolerant of the effects of this impenetrability, creating a demand for "plain English" and readable documents that facilitate rather than impede the "doing of justice" (Danet, "Law, Bureaucracy, and Language" 55) in the United States. Researchers in the Document Design Center, Washington, D.C., have spearheaded this drive for more accessible documents. Even though the American Institute for Research (AIR) and its Document Design Center have been in operation for less than 10 years, the influence of their work has been far-reaching. Over 19 states have put "plain English" laws into effect, and 10 others have such laws in legislative committee. In July 1984, a federal judge in New York City 2 ruled that Medicare forms must be written in plain English and that all forms of "officialese, federalese, insurancese and doublespeak" must be eliminated from the agency's correspondence (Detroit Free Press, July 19, 1984). Such legislation is a logical extension of human rights legislation passed in the sixties and seventies to guarantee civil rights in housing, transportation and education. Today, the definition of civil rights has been extended to include the right to understand documents and to comprehend bureaucratic procedures without the need for a lawyer or ombudsman. To develop more accessible documents, researchers in the Document Design Center have been .examining linguistic and spatial modifications that enhance the readability of "gatekeeper" documents like Social Security, scholarship, and loan applications. They have studied the use of space, headings (Swarts, 1980; Charrow, Rewriter, 1979), sentence structure (Charrow, Rewriter, 1979) and graphics (Felker, 1980). They have created procedures and practices for document revision grounded in recent research in psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, readability and instructional design (Felker, 1980). The objectives of this research were to foster clear and simple writing, produce a readable design for public documents and increase 3 the knowledge and skill of those who produce public documents (Felker, 1980). But the relationship between graphic display, writing style and the uses of specific documents is not yet clear. Research has concentrated on a necessary first step-- discovering those modifications that enable document users to understand and follow complex instructions. But the relationship of graphic display and writing style, what Winterowd (1983) has called the "technology of accessibility," has not been fully correlated with the rhetorical aim of individual documents. Until recently, the goal of greater efficiency in reading has motivated the revision of many public access documents, like government regulations and procedures, mortgage forms and lending procedures. But applying this goal to documents having a human subject may have unintended results. This study will examine the rhetorical and other implications of modifying a document that has a human subject--the presentence investigation (hereafter referred to as the PSI). Building on previous research, this project will develop a second area of research in document design, one that examines the interconnection between rhetorical purpose, social function and document design. The PSI is a rich source of information for such an 4 examination because, unlike other documents that have undergone revision, it focuses on the criminal and social history of a human subject. The central argument of this study is that the manner and form in which information is recorded in the PSI may ✓ have significant bearing on the determination of sentence. This issue is not restricted to Michigan— the location of this study--but extends to other states that are looking to cut costs by reducing the amount of time required to produce and read PSIs. The Presentence Investigation The PSI is one of three major documents in the United States' legal system. Like the judicial opinion and legal brief, it is mandated by law (in most states), but its audience is limited to the presiding judge, the defendant's lawyer and since early 1983 (in Michigan), the defendant himself. After an offender has been convicted of a crime/ a probation officer is charged with creating a report for the judge--the.PSI--that includes information about the criminal and social history of the defendant. The report may also include information about the defendant's life that would have been inadmissible at the trial but might provide crucial data for sentencing. 5 The probation officer has between three and seven days before the sentencing date to gather the defendant's criminal and social history and present it to the sentencing judge. During that period, the probation officer investigates the legal records and also goes into the defendant's community to gather further information about the defendant's character from family, teachers and employers. Having gathered this wide range of data about the defendant, the probation officer then compiles the report for the judge. Form of the PSI The PSI usually consists of three parts: a "face" or cover sheet that includes specific bits of information related to the trial, the offense and the defendant's prior record; a second section providing the official description of the offense and the defendant's description of the offense; and a third section that includes the "Evaluation, and Plan," a summary of the detailed information about the social, marital and work history of the defendant. This section has historically been composed in narrative form in small essays of one to five pages. Appended to the report is a recommendation for sentencing that is intended as a logical conclusion to the quasi-argument embedded in the social history. Judges in Michigan and other states accept 6 90 percent of these recommendations, giving this report great significance as a form of legal rhetoric (Carter, "Presentencing Report" 128). The PSI has been called the "basic working document of the probationary process" (Spica 51), and "the most important document in the federal criminal process" (Schmolesky 406) because it not only provides the sentencing judge with information necessary for tailoring the sentence to the individual offender, but it also serves to aid prison officials and prison psychologists in classification, institutional programming and release planning decisions. In brief, the PSI has multiple audiences and multiple uses. However, its primary purpose, and the purpose most relevant to this study, is to provide the sentencing judge with timely, relevant information about the defendant. (See Appendix D for sample of 1983 PSI). The form and function of the PSI have been influenced by a long-standing American belief in the need and obligation of the correctional system to rehabilitate the individual criminal offender. This belief, which originated with our system of laws, has been buttressed by the social-work training of early nineteenth-century probation officers (Carter, Handbook 3). According to 7 legal custom, probation officers worked closely with sentencing judges providing them with sufficient information to tailor the sentence to the individual offender. The elaboration permitted, and even encouraged by the narrative form of the "Evaluation and Plan," served to provide sentencing judges with sufficiently detailed information to enable them to tailor sentences to individual defendants. James White discusses the special responsibility of sentencing in The Legal Imagination: Here the entire individual stands before the judge and the very question to be decided is: "Who is this man?" He should seek to understand the defendant and his act as fully as possible from every point of view. No way of talking about the man should be considered irrelevant, and the defendant should be free to characterize himself in any terms he chooses. For to determine the sentence, it is not enough to put a label on the defendant's conduct: the punishment, we say, should fit the criminal, not the crime (364). Background As a result of a complex set of economic, political and social changes detailed in Chapter Three, the Michigan PSI underwent significant revision during the years 1979- 83, as part of a program to streamline the sentencing process. To accelerate this streamlining process, which officials had already begun internally, corrections administrators sought the advice and expertise of Dwight Stevenson, author of Designing Technical Reports. 8 Stevenson followed the intentions of earlier designers and produced a revised format for the document. It was the state's intention to replace the often lengthy narrative descriptions (in the "Evaluation and Plan") with brief, three-paragraph, deductively-organized synopses of the defendant's "strengths and weaknesses, followed by the probation officer's prognosis for change," what Linda Flower has labelled "top down" writing ("Writer-Based Prose," 1979). Stevenson developed a day-long training session for supervisors to provide them with instruction on how to discern and eliminate unessential information, subjective statements and legally-damaging judgments about defendants in the PSIs. The supervisors were then supposed to return to their district offices and train their staff probation officers. Stevenson also redesigned the cover sheet for the PSI to make basic information about the defendant more readily accessible to readers, particularly judges. The Purpose of the Study This inquiry was prompted by the hypothesis that significant modifications to the "Evaluation and Plan" section of the PSI, modifications which probation officers were trained to carry out, might signal potential changes 9 in the state's attitude toward the writers, the readers and, potentially, the subjects of the PSI, the defendants. These changes might ultimately result in unwelcome social and political effects. If "form can . . . be ideological" (Coe, "An Apology for Form" 20), then we must carefully consider the outcomes of document design, for, in this act, as in other symbolic acts, we can discover the "dancing of an attitude" (Burke, Philosophy 9). The PSI, like every document in history, must be treated as a "strategy for encompassing a situation" (Burke, Philosophy 109). The primary purpose of this study, therefore, is to analyze the following: the professional discourse, the PSI; the authors of that discourse, probation officers; and the situation in which modifications to the PSI have taken place. This analysis is founded on Kenneth Burke's philosophy of language and constructed of ethnographic data--including written samples of PSIs and discourse-based interviews with probation officers, supervisors, administrators and judges. It is hoped that the findings from this inquiry will provide rhetorical insights for document designers, and will contribute to the growing body of research on writing produced in non-academic settings (Odell and Goswami, 1985; Clark and Florio, 1983; Basso, 1974). 10 Data Examination This inquiry begins with an analysis of the procedure statement, an official document that provides detailed instructions to corrections staff about the content and composition of the PSI. Each time the PSI undergoes revision of any type, the Department of Corrections issues a new procedure statement providing new guidelines and directives for the writers. It continues with an analysis of procedure statements from three different periods: 1956, during which the rehabilitative ideal was in full flower; 1980, the year the State of Michigan took control of state corrections, subordinating formerly-autonomous regional offices to a single state office while revising procedures, including the composition of the PSI; and 1983, the year Dwight Stevenson, author of Designing Technical Reports, provided a further redesign of the Michigan PSI for the State Department of Corrections, one that was intended to carry out the state's legal and rhetorical intentions. (See Chapter Three for complete discussion of procedure statements). Examination of a representative sample of PSIs written by each officer during the three years--1979, 1980 and 1983--will help determine whether probation officers were complying with new requirements by using the top-down 11 format that encourages a deductive summary of the defendant's strengths and weaknesses. It will also disclose whether probation officers were indeed eliminating redundant statements and unsupported generalizations, two goals of the state-sponsored training sessions. Interviews with probation officers will help determine whether they believe the PSI has a persuasive, informative or mixed rhetorical aim and whether they believe that rhetorical aim has been modified by revisions in the form of the document. Another issue to be determined from these interview sessions is whether probation officers believe that the "Evaluation and Plan" section contains an implicit ethical appeal and, if it does, whether that appeal has been diminished or enhanced by changes in the document's form. The goal of each interview is to discover the probation officers' attitudes toward revisions in the document. Because modifications to the structure of the "Evaluation and Plan" were intended as time-saving measures for the writers--top-down writing being considered more efficient than narrative— the writers will be asked if this "writer-sponsored" change had in fact made their writing task easier or faster. 12 Another issue is the relationship between the writers--the probation officers--and their audience, the judges. Interviews will also seek to discover whether the perceived relationship between the probation officers and the judges influenced the probation officers' attitudes toward writing as well their writing's style and content. Interviews with supervisors and managers will determine their attitudes toward current modifications and their assessment of the new form's success. Managerial staff can also provide additional information about specific probation officers' performance and attitude, because these managers must monitor the writing produced. The last part of this study will be a series of interviews with a representative sample of Detroit-area judges from Recorder's court to determine whether they believe the audience-sponsored goals of document redesign-- greater readability and accessibility--have been accomplished and whether the quality or comprehensiveness of the PSI has been influenced by recent modifications. Another objective of these interviews is to determine the judges' attitudes toward probation officers and the role of the PSI in their decision-making process. 13 Background: Writing in Non-academic Settings During the past decade, researchers in composition have begun to move outside the classroom to examine the rhetorical knowledge of professional writers. In their groundbreaking article, "Studying Writing in Non-Academic Settings," Odell and Goswami attempt to corroborate classroom practice and theoretical assumptions by examining the writing tasks that professionals perform as part of their daily work. Utilizing research strategies developed by Gibson, Kinneavy and Halliday, Odell and Goswami evaluated memos written by social workers, and categorized their diction and syntax choices as audience-based, writer- based, and subject-based decisions (27-28). By using the discourse-based interview, Odell and Goswami were able to elicit information about the writers' "tacit knowledge" of audience and ethos (Polanyi and Prosch, 1975), concluding finally that these writers had a complex understanding of their rhetorical context and of the personas they needed to adopt in order to successfully communicate a variety of messages to a variety of audiences ("The Discourse-Based Interview" 223). Their work and that of Scribner and Cole enlarge the scope of composition research, placing this field of study in a wider social 14 context. In addition to these compositions researchers who are investigating the development of rhetorical knowledge, certain psychologists, anthropologists and educators have also initiated studies oh the ' ’ ways in which literacy is acquired in the course of social life, and on the range of skills that ought to be considered when documenting or planning for instruction in writing" (Clark and Florio 238). A cross-disciplinary interest in the ethnography of writing is developing as researchers examine writing and its meanings as part of the "total communicative economy of the society under study" (Basso 432). Richly interdisciplinary in scope and method, this emerging field of inquiry borrows research strategies from psychology, anthropology (Geertz, 1973; Agar, 1980), sociology (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), sociolinguistics (Halliday, 1976) and rhetoric (Burke, 1941, 1966, 1969) because, as Dell Hymes explains in "Ethnographies of Communication:" If one is to have a theory of language (not just a theory of grammar) one needs fresh kinds of data; one needs to investigate directly the uses of language in contexts of situation, so as to discern patterns proper to speech activity, patterns that escape separate studies of grammar (3). "Fresh" kinds of sociolinguistic data emerge particularly from fields undergoing what Thomas Kuhn has called a "paradigm shift." Currently, the field of 15 corrections— like the broader field of legal studies that influences policy and practice in corrections— is undergoing such a shift. Underscoring this paradigm shift has been a gradual but significant change in American attitudes toward the subject of the PSI, the criminal offender. The Origins of the Rehabilitative Ideal In the early nineteenth century, some British utilitarians and Italian reformers, like Cesare Beccaria, espoused classical theories of criminology. Formulated to "curtail the political excesses of corrupt regimes," classical penology advocated fixed measures of punishment for specific crimes (Allen 68). By limiting the powers of the judiciary, classical penologists, in general, placed more importance in the legislative area, which would dispense punishment uniformly without regard to age or station (Vasoli 19). Under these political and philosophic conditions, the PSI was not needed. Similar attitudes initially prevailed in the United States. Characterized by a high degree of ethnic and religious homogeneity, most American colonial communities possessed a "strong predisposition to strict social control and a clear intention to establish a powerful 16 magistry" (Greenberg 319). Religious consensus provided a profoundly moral "loci of the preferable" (Perelman The Realm of Rhetoric 29) from which severe and often summary punishments were meted out to offenders. But American attitudes toward penology and punishment shifted in the late nineteenth century, as evidenced by the passage of the Massachusetts Probation Act in 1878, whose object was to "reform criminals and to prevent crime and not to punish maliciously, or from a spirit of revenge" (AuPerrier 3). Because the Probation Act departed from tradition by allowing suspended sentences, the job of probation officer was created. By preparing reports on offenders that included descriptions of their "social stability and criminal inclinations," the probation officer would help determine those eligible for suspended sentences and probation. In "The Presentence Investigation," McAnany describes these early reports as "essentially practical judgment[s] about social risk, prepared by officers who frequently had been or still were, policemen" (1473). Thus the PSI, created over 100 years ago, has always obtained its "character-as-rhetorical" from the situation which generates it (Bitzer 3). With the rise of psychological theories of development in the early twentieth century, the state became entrusted 17 with the power to intercede in the life of potential criminals. An offender could be granted probationary periods, a time during which criminal tendencies might be reformed through the efforts of psychologists and sociologists. Convinced that the state could and should intervene in the social and psychological development of young offenders, William Healey, the Director of the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute in Chicago, called for an "individual study of the young criminal." In his 1910 report, he emphasized "the importance of a thorough-going study of the individual case at the period of life when something, if ever, can be done in the way of individual modification" (Carter, Handbook 3). The presentence report thus became a vehicle for personal reformation. According to Healey: The primary objective of the presentence report is to focus light on the character and personality of the defendant, to offer insight into his problems and needs, to help understand the world in which he lives, to learn about his relationships with people, and to discover those salient factors that underlie his offense and his conduct in general (Handbook 4). Given this information, Healey and his colleagues believed they could develop a scientific approach to delinquency. In an early text on probation techniques, Mary Richards encouraged probation officers to make a "social diagnosis" of the defendant (Carter, Handbook 4). 18 Edwin Cooley, Chief Probation officer of the Court of General Sessions at New York City, elaborated on Healey's call for greater scientific probation techniques by asking that the probation report include an extensive social history as well as a legal history of the defendant. Extending the domain of the report, Cooley suggested that the PSI include a discussion of "the heredity, physical conditions, mentality (capacity, traits, and interests), emotions, sentiments and beliefs, character and conduct, and manner and appearance" of the offender (Carter, Handbook 5). Casting the net so widely over human character allowed early probation officers great discretion as to what they might include in the PSI, which caused even leading proponents of the social engineering model some concern. In a 1914 study, Flexner and Baldwin observed that "probation officers, as a rule, fail to distinguish between facts and conclusions" (Carter, Handbook 3). Concern about the indiscriminate gathering of personal data led Mary Richmond to advocate teaching probation officers "to distinguish in the evidence collected what is relatively important for successful treatment from what is relatively unimportant" (Carter, Handbook 4). 19 Twentieth Century Legislation and the Rehabilitative Ideal The passage of the Federal Probation Act in 1925 assured the role of the PSI in the corrections system. The Federal probation officer was officially empowered to gather data about the offender's background. The enactment of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure in 1946, which allowed the inclusion of diagnostic and clinical information defining the criminal's psychological condition, further enhanced the PSI's importance (Fennell 1623) . Although debate about the form and content of the PSI continued, one central belief underlying the philosophy of corrections has remained intact for almost 50 years--the belief in the rehabilitative ideal. In his major study, The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal, Fredrick Allen defines this concept: The rehabilitative ideal is the notion that a primary purpose of penal treatment is to effect changes in the characters, attitudes, and behavior of convicted offenders so as to strengthen the social defense against unwanted behavior, but also to contribute to the welfare and satisfactions of offenders (2). According to the central tenets of this philosophy, the states can and should offer offenders the means to adapt to society's definition of a "good citizen." Allen asserts that such a belief can persist only in societies which possess a "strong and widespread belief in the 20 malleability of human character and behavior," and which agree on what it means to be rehabilitated as well as on the distinction between the malady and the cure (11). Correctional Techniques related to the Rehabilitative Ideal Four widely-utilized correctional techniques have been derived from the philosophy of individuation: the indeterminate sentence, classification policies of most state prison systems, special sentencing procedures for youthful offenders (in Michigan, the Holmes Youthful Training Act, or HYTA), and the PSI (Vasoli 20). This inquiry is especially concerned with the relationship between two of these techniques: the indeterminate sentence and the preparation of the PSI. In a major study reported in the Harvard Law Review, Stephen Fennell discusses three related premises that underlie the rehabilitation model of individual sentencing: first, the sentencing judge can use wide discretion to select a sentence ranging from a period of imprisonment, to probation, or a suspended sentence. Second, a sentencing judge must have complete information on the offender's life in order to make an accurate diagnosis and chose an effective sentence. Third, Fennell adds, is the fact that most of the sentencing is performed in a "quasi- 21 * administrative" setting that possesses few trial-like safeguards (1622). Fleshed out with facts for the presiding judge, the PSI became an example of what Kinneavy calls "informative discourse," in this case one in which "facts about change are ordered to a chronological sequence of cause and effect, resulting in a narrative" (Theory 160). While the PSI is often considered a report whose utility is measured by its comprehensiveness, it also has an underlying persuasive aim, i.e., to gain the judge's adherence to the thesis about the defendant that emerges in the PSI (Perelman, New Rhetoric 32). Gaining such adherence is relatively easy if a widespread consensus exists about the causes of criminal behavior and the role of the state in effecting a cure. Such a cohesive cultural belief could be maintained in the first half of the twentieth century; but three wars in 30 years, criticism of American practices in Vietnam, as well as increasing perception of racist practices at home served to fracture national consensus about the causes and cures of criminal behavior. Criminal offenders often became identified as "victims of a discriminatory system" (Nelson 1), and the exercise of criminal justice came to be viewed 22 as an "exercise in social control devoid of moral authority" (Allen 36). In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Michel Foucault analyzes the philosophical implications of the shift from medieval to modern theories of penology. He asserts that, by substituting the more "humane" correctional techniques associated with the rehabilitative ideal for bodily punishment, men have subtly perverted the concept of punishment. Rather than pass judgment on the severity of the crime committed--the classical model of corrections— modern penologists "have taken to judging something other than crimes" (19). He adds that other types of assessment have slipped in: something quite different, which is not juridicially codifiable: the knowledge of the criminal, one’s estimation of him, what is known about the relations between him, his past, and his crime, and what might be expected of him in the future. They are also judged by the interplay of all those notions that have circulated between medicine and jurisprudence since the nineteenth century . . . and which, behind the pretext of explaining an action, are ways of defining an individual (19). Foucault describes the gradual displacement of responsibility for sentencing from the judge to a series of subsidiary authorities, including members of the corrections department, psychological experts and educators (21). Clearly a member of that group, the probation officer represents those who have the task of recommending 23 whether the offender deserves to be placed in semi or conditional liberty. According to Foucault, the state hands over the mechanisms of legal punishment to these functionaries to be used at their discretion: "subsidiary judges they may be, but judges all the same" (21). Foucault interprets the increasing leniency of punishment and displacement of its application as a "whole new system of truth. . . . A corpus of knowledge, techniques, 'scientific' discourses is formed and becomes entangled with the practice of the power to punish" (23). The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal The PSI has always been a strongly rhetorical document, discourse applied to a situation, mediating between the world and the offender (Bitzer 4). It has represented that precarious balance between shifting goals: control and reform, protection of society and rehabilitation of the offender, order and liberty. The tension maintained between these opposites is particularly acute for American societies because "so few societies have simultaneously valued liberty so intensely and pursued order so passionately" (Greenberg 324). Because of recent concern about the political and social ramifications inherent in a comprehensive PSI, many 24 states have enacted "disclosure laws" that enable both the defendant and his lawyer to read and contest any information in the report. Left unchallenged, misinformation or misleading statements could have multiple impact, affecting not only the severity of the sentence but the offender's classification in prison, and his chance to be given furloughs and early parole (Fennell 1628). In general, the PSI has served as a kind of bellwether document recording the status of social attitudes toward rehabilitation. Interestingly enough, the rehabilitative ideal itself has been eroded by many factors: growing uncertainty about the efficacy of rehabilitation programs, two decades of political turmoil that have splintered American consensus and given rise to widespread desires to curb the power of the state, and a new affirmation of fundamental, moral values that demand limitation upon individual action and state control. To achieve such containment requires, according to Allen, that "penal sanctions must be definite and limited by law and must apply equally to all persons convicted in the criminal courts" (68). The policy implications of this new classical approach--also called the "just desserts" approach--are clear: sentencing discretion must be 25 eliminated or sharply curtailed and indeterminate sentencing eliminated. These retributive theories are contributing to a "new paradigm of criminal justice" (Allen 69) that attempts to reconcile genuine incompatibilities in purpose and values (Allen 77). Allen describes the present period as one of great dissonance; but like many theorists (Dahl, 1979; Nelson, 1978) he believes that "the traditions and aspirations of the rehabilitative ideal are not dead; they still attract a large and powerful constituency" (60). This inquiry considers the PSI as discourse that reflects this shifting paradigm. In its present and past forms, the PSI has always had--in Burkean terms--a design upon readers. The social and rhetorical implications of that changing design are the subject of the following chapters. 26 Chapter Two Project Methodology Rationale This rhetorical study of a judicial document has been informed by a number of perspectives from theorists beginning with Aristotle to present-day critics. To produce the most well-rounded discussion of the PSI, a document-in-transition, I have examined the documents themselves and the attitudes of the probation officers who produce them. However, confining this study simply to such a review would have been of limited value to rhetoricians because a redesign process results in more than simply a revised product. One must also consider the attitudes of the PSI's producers and users of this document since attitude is implicit in act, shaping performance and ultimately policy. To elicit information about attitudes toward performance and policy among probation officers, corrections administrators and judges, I have utilized qualitative research methods, most importantly "participant observation," which Denzin has described as "a field strategy that simultaneously combines document 27 analysis, interviewing of respondents and informants, direct participation and observation, and introspection" (183). These methods are being adopted increasingly by composition specialists engaged in ethnographic research. This section will first consider the applicability of ethnographic strategies to composition research and will then address the issue of discovering and applying appropriate methods of data interpretation. Kenneth Burke's system of dramatism has provided guidance in data interpretation in many disciplines, including modern studies in sociology (Overington, 1977), anthropology (Hymes, 1974) and administrative science (Manning, 1979). While my study is eclectically rhetorical, it obviously has a dramatistic bias. Ethnographic Research Methods A growing number of researchers in the field of composition studies (Odell and Goswami, 1985; Kantor, 1981*; Basso, 1974) have adopted ethnographic research methods because these methods are "flexible, discovery-oriented, and concerned with the particulars of context, the dynamics of social action, and construction of meanings" (Kantor 305). In his bibliographic essay on the subject, Kenneth Kantor describes the ethnographer's research process: 28 Ethnographic field notes, recorded or transcribed interviews and explicit descriptions of physical traces are reduced, organized, and combined to form an authentic verbal picture of the group or culture being studied that might serve as a manual for another researcher entering that cultural scene (Beals, Spindler & Spindler in Kantor 296). Louise Rosenblatt finds these methods particularly appropriate for problems in literature and language because their flexibility and variety can "counteract the artificiality and static character of ideas derived from the older research designs" (105-106). The variety of method yields what Clifford Geertz has called "thick description," "fresh kinds of data" from which the researcher must attempt to derive valid meaning (3). In an attempt to make meaning, the researcher shuttles between two interpretative communities--the researcher's own community and the one being studied-- assuming "etic" and "emie" perspectives that help provide a rich account of the data, one that is more than a "construction of other people's constructions" (Geertz 9). Matthew Miles praises these qualitative methods because they "lend themselves to the production of serendipitous findings and the adumbration of unforeseen theoretical leaps" that "tend to reduce a researcher's trained incapacity, bias, narrowness, and arrogance" ("Qualitative Data" 590). 29 In addition to providing fresh perspectives, qualitative methods often produce copious amounts of data from which the researcher must attempt to build a "theory of events" (Agar, Professional Stranger 115). The first step in this process involves the search for pattern in the data, which is described variously by anthropologists and sociologists who have long used qualitative methods in their research. Some researchers organize perceptions sequentially and hierarchically, in a manner similar to Francis Christensen's levels of generality (29). John Lofland, in Analyzing Social Settings, describes the analytic process in terms of scope. He suggests that the researcher focuses attention from the microscopic to the macroscopic, using terms like, "practices," "episodes," "relationships," "organizations" (71-92). In The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography, Michael Agar suggests that the ethnographer is attempting to build a "theory of events" by studying accounts of events provided by key informants, discovering patterns in their responses, and from these patterns constructing "themes," a classic term in anthropology (115). In their seminal work, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Glaser and Strauss refer to this process as the emergence of 30 categories from data (62). Clifford Geertz describes analysis as the "sorting out of the structures of signifi cation . . . and determining their social ground and import" (9). Ethnographers and social scientists engaged in qualitative research attempt to discover meaning and significance in the welter of material their methods generate; but making sense of large amounts of data is difficult. A recent study of major texts on field methods demonstrated that most of the texts largely ignored the problem of analysis, "typically devoting not more than five-ten percent of the pages to it," and choosing instead to discuss how to gain access, choose informants, and conduct interviews. Even fewer texts demonstrated how analytic methods might vary according to different purposes of field work (Miles 595-6). In "Interpreting Discourse: Coherence and the Analysis of Ethnographic Interviews," Agar and Hobbs consider a central rhetorical problem in analysis: . . . data such as ethnographic interviews constitute the most common way of discovering a culture, but there is a dearth of formal methods for going from a text to the cultural presuppositions that underlie it (1). In "Metaphors of the Field: Varieties of Organizational Discourse," Peter K. Manning describes the problem of 31 qualitative analysis as "that of avoiding solipsism on the one hand and avoiding positivism on the other" (660). The challenge of qualitative research in linguistics, anthropolocy and sociology has been to investigate the tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1964) of respondents so as to reveal thier cultural and linguistic presuppositions. But because of what Dell Hymes calls "lingering behaviorism," many approaches to analysis do not provide a place for purpose or motive, even though such description is essential to understanding events in all their individual richness. In "Toward Ethnographies of Communication," Hymes singles out Kenneth Burke's approach as a "notable exception" (57) so innovative that it would seem that Burke has been first in the field . . . by a generation, with regards to standpoints toward language that recent linguists take to be recent on the American scene. He's still ahead of us in some respects (136). Burkean Interpretation of Qualitative Data Linguists have long been aware of Burke's philosophy of language and the richness it uncovers, but sociolo gists have been slower to adopt Burkean perspectives despite the fact that "Burke has been lurking in sociolo gists footnotes since the 1930s "largely due to his own description of "dramatism" in The Intemationa1 Encyclo pedia of the Social Sciences (Overington 131). In 32 "Kenneth Burke and the Method of Dramatism," Michael Overington attempts to offer a "translation of his systematic writing that makes sense to sociologists" (132), but doubts about the "sufficiency" of Burkean methods linger in his analysis: Is there a practical limit, a limit that would make analytic sense, to the kinds of descriptive accounts that could be spun out of the terms of this illustration, or, more generally, 'out of any set of analytic terms?'(149). Overington finds Burke's pursuit of dialectical substance in A Grammar of Motives somewhat slippery because "there are no explicit rules for accomplishing this analysis of clusters of motivational terms" (144). Because the need for limits and conventional order remain strong for Overington, Burke's "dramatism" receives only weak endorsement as a method of analysis: . .a dramatistic reconstruction has as much a priori plausibility as any other interpretation that could be generated with the text" (150). Manning's essay, "Metaphors of the Field," more attuned to recent trends in social philosophy, posits that "observers create a domain of interest through concepts and perspectives, affirm it by selective and selected measures and, in a sense, construct the social world through these actions" (660). Manning argues that 33 "methodological analysis must discover discourse," and since tropes are the "stylistic means by which discourse constitutes the objects which it 'pretends' only to describe 'realistically'.and analyze 'objectively,'" those tropes can and should be used for analyzing and gathering field data (661). Using examples from his own work with narcotics investigators, Manning demonstrates how he applied Burkean "perspectives by incongruity," applying Burke's interpretations of metaphor, irony and metonomy to his field data to yield a far more complex interpretation of drug policing than would have been possible with traditional methods. This study of the PSI borrows strategies from A Grammar of Motives (1969), A Rhetoric of Motives (1950), Permanence and Change (1954), and especially The Philosophy of Literary Form (1941). Underlying the examination of written documents and creation of interview questions are two key Burkean premises: a) literature is any writing that has a design upon readers and b) the literary is always a form of social action. Document design, like poetry, is a strategic answer, a stylized response to the engendering situation. Whether modifications in content, style and 34 format of a document constitute a "fitting response" for encompassing this situation is a central question in this inquiry. Burkean analysis begins with Burke's definition of literature as a "strategy for encompassing a situation" (Philosophy of Literary Form 109). In Criticism and Social Change, Frank Lentricchia emphasizes that this strategy, embedded in discourse, "was always a form of social action" (27) that called for a reader's close scrutiny. In an early essay, "Revolutionary Symbolism in America," Burke admonished that men must attend to the machinery of representation because power lies in rhetorical strategies and the media of their dissemination. A political struggle is not won solely by seizing the means of production but by seizing the means of representation (Lentricchia 27-28). In this examination of the PSI, I consider the rhetorical and political consequences of document design as a modern means of representation that employs a dramatistic approach. In A Grammar of Motives Burke defines the five key terms of dramatism: In a rounded statement about motives, you must have some word that names the "act" (names what took place in thought or deed), and another that names the "scene" (the background of the act, the situation in which it occurred); also, you must indicate what person or kind of person (agent) performed the act, 35 what means or instruments he used (agency), and the "purpose” (xv). Burke did not intend that these perspectives be used reductively, though he was aware that "any terminology of motives reduces the vast complexity of life by reduction to principles, laws, sequences, classifications, correlations, in brief, abstractions or generalizations of one sort or another" (Grammar 96). Rather, he expected that the student of human motives would consider the relationship between these terms or "ratios." For Burke the crucial ratio is scene:act because "from the motivational point of view, there is implicit in the quality of a scene the quality of the action that is to take place within it . . . scene is to act as implicit is to explicit" (Grammar 6-7). The concept of "scene" enables the researcher to "locate" action in a particular philosophic and economic setting. As Burke explains: "... one set of scenic conditions will 'implement' and 'amplify' given ways and temperaments which, in other situations would remain mere potentialities, unplanted seeds, 'mute inglorious Miltons'" (Grammar 19). The scene:act ratio--in this case the relationship between the political and economic situation and the PSI--is particularly appropriate to this study of professional discourse (Chapter Three). In Chapter Four, I examine the relationship between the "agent"--the 36 probation officer— and the "act." In Chapter Six, I consider the relationship of "purpose"— the stated goals of the PSI— and the "agency"--the means used to alter the PSI. In The Philosophy of Literary Form, Burke offers additional techniques for interpreting the data. First, he suggests we watch for the "dramatic alignments" among terms and the sets of "equations" that reinforce each of the opposing principles (69). In poetic or functional discourse, the investigator should "consider the situations behind the tactics of expression," because the tactics that organize a work technically organize it emotionally" (92). In analyzing interview data and data about revisions to the PSI (discussed in the next chapter), I have also used Burke's definitions of semantic and poetic meanings, as well as the "margin of overlap" between them, to explore "attitudinal" changes in the document. Kenneth Burke's philosophy, especially as it uncovers "dramatic alignments" in social situations and examines written products as "symbolic acts that contain strategies for encompassing situations," enables the composition researcher to interpret data and discover implications that might otherwise remain hidden. 37 Procedures I first became aware of the presentence investigation (PSI) and the revisions it was undergoing through Dwight Stevenson, who had been commissioned by the state to direct a redesign project for the State of Michigan Department of Corrections. To gain access to copies of the PSI, I first had to obtain permission from the State Office of Corrections because the PSI is a highly privileged document available only to corrections officials, judges and lawyers. In 1983, I was granted permission to read, analyze and copy these privileged documents, provided I preserved the anonymity of the offenders whose lives and crimes are described within. To honor that promise I have blocked out all identifying details in samples of presentence examinations, including names and street addresses, as well as names of relatives and friends. In addition, I have created pseudonyms for all probation officers, managers and judges who participated in this study to ensure their full and free participation. Choice of Location At the suggestion of Bob Richardson in the State Office of Corrections, I chose to work in Wayne County, 38 location of the city of Detroit and the most populous county in the State. Richardson suggested I contact Bob LeCureaux, then Director of the Detroit-area Department of Corrections, for his help in establishing necessary contacts in the county. From the beginning, LeCureaux supported this project by providing me with valuable background information about changes in the criminal justice system and by setting up meetings with area managers. I explained to Richardson and LeCureaux that I wished to study the writing performed by a representative sample of probation officers between the years 1979 and 1983. I specifically wanted to examine three critical years in that period of time--1979, 1981 and 1983--which mark significant turning points in the history of the Michigan Department of Corrections. In 1979, probation officers were not yet organized under state control; their writing performance on the PSI was influenced by earlier procedure statements that emphasized the social-work orientation of probation. In 1980, the state took over the direction of probation and parole offices and tried to regularize and streamline correctional procedures, including the writing of the PSI. Sample PSIs from 1981 would reflect the 39 intentions spelled out in the 1980 procedure statement. In 1983, the state further revised the PSI to make it easier to read, write and process. To accomplish these objectives, the state sponsored state-wide training sessions designed by Dwight Stevenson to help probation officers meet the new guidelines for content and composition of the PSI. An examination of PSIs from the post-training period would determine whether probation officers were, in fact, following the guidelines established for them. The purpose of this investigation was to discover how probation officers' writing had evolved over this five-year period as they responded to changing directives from the state. To obtain a representative sample of probation officers, LeCureaux suggested that I work with the staff members from two separate probation offices, one located in urban Detroit, the other in an older, outlying suburb of Detroit. The manager of the urban office initially appeared reluctant to participate, but LeCureaux's support of the project served to obtain his cooperation. The other manager was highly receptive to the goals of the project and proved a constant support during the length of the project--1983-1986. 40 Selection of Participants I asked each manager to identify six probation officers from the office who represented different years of experience and different levels of writing ability. I hypothesized that probation officers of longer tenure might respond differently to the demands for change in the PSI than less-established ones. I further hypothesized that high and low-skill writers might respond differently to state guidelines for the content and organization of the PSI. The managers identified suitable candidates for the study but could not guarantee their participation. Probation officers, somewhat like college professors, are professionally autonomous, accountable only to their supervisors and managers. They schedule their own time, allocating specific work days to different responsibilities: gathering data in the community for inclusion in the PSI, writing the PSI, keeping regular appointments with their probationers and tracking offenders' compliance with the terms of their probation. In addition, they must cope with a steady stream of new policies and procedures as well as caveats, correctives, and reminders about old ones. 41 Because the probation officers are extremely busy and often more than a little uninterested in any further management-generated activities, I did not anticipate widespread enthusiasm for my study, since it had been sanctioned by the district office. In fact, I anticipated some unwillingness to participate. However, this was not the case in the suburban office where the manager, Marilyn Brownell, spoke favorably about the project to her staff and thereby diffused some of their distrust of an academic outsider. The manager of the urban office, on the other hand, was distrustful of my motives, fearing— I later came to realize--that I had been sent to his office by the state to report on his competency. While he identified a "representative" group of participants from his staff for the study, he included in that group several officers with whom he had ongoing management problems, a fact I was not to discover until I had difficulty enlisting the full participation of these officers. He made other smaller- scale attempts to sabotage the project, but most of his staff members came to trust me and talk freely with me in spite of his passive resistance to the project. 42 Enlisting Participant Support While Marilyn Brownell was a strong ally, even her support could not completely dispel the skepticism of some probation officers on her staff. Disturbed by the shake-up created by state takeover and the subsequent series of revisions to the PSI, not to mention the passage of disclosure laws and other manifestations of not-always- welcome change in corrections, these experienced professionals could not completely dismiss the possibility that my inquiry might have potential work-related ramifications. Many probation officers were aware that an outsider engaged in a research project sanctioned by the state might conceivably report negative findings to the administration that had approved the project. From the beginning I realized that I had to dispel this suspicion by assuring respondents that I was not working for the administration but only with its permission. I guaranteed anonymity to all probation officers and assured them that I was as interested in their opinions about recent changes as I was in their performance as writers. During initial meetings with each of the probation officers in the sample, I discussed my academic interest in the rhetoric of the PSI. A few of the younger probation officers appeared somewhat 43 surprised at my interest in a document they consider routine, but older officers, who viewed the document as more significant, appeared to welcome the chance to discuss recent events with an interested outsider. Data-Gatherinq Interviews I spoke informally with all participants, in offices, hallways and lounges during a six-month period in 1983. In 1984, I conducted open-ended, discourse-based interviews with each participant that lasted on average 30 to 60 minutes each. The purpose of these interviews was to elicit information about the probation officers' attitudes toward recent changes in the form of the PSI and about their perceptions of the relationship between form, style and rhetorical purpose in the PSI. (See Chapter One for the topics discussed during interviews.) Questions were phrased variously, depending on my audience. For example, the concept of "rhetorical aim" was less clear than I thought it would be to probation officers. Although some academic researchers (Gabor and Jaywardene) describe the aim of the PSI as "persuasive," probation officers do not readily use that term to describe the intention embedded in the PSI. The word "persuasion" 44 has some negative implications for them, much as the word "rhetoric" has in common parlance. To probation officers, * "persuasion" implies overt attempts to sway a judge's opinion. However, while.,few used the term "persuasion" to describe their intentions, many described writing strategies they used to "influence" the judge's decision. As a result, I began to use the term "influence" to discuss intention. Because supervisors provide valuable interpretations of changes in the form and intent of the PSI, I have included interview data from supervisors at both locations. After asking and obtaining permission from each respondent, I used a microcassette to record interviews. I placed the small recorder in an unobtrusive place during each interview and used 60-minute tapes that guaranteed uninterrupted discussions. Locating Writing Samples To assess the writing performance of this representative sample of probation officers, I needed a representative sample of their work from the three critical years: 1979, 1981 and 1983. After reading a large number of PSIs, I decided that a set of five PSIs from each year could provide sufficient data from which to draw reasonable conclusions about performance. I then collected a minimum 45 of 15 PSIs for each member of the group, five from each year. Before I could proceed to locate these sample PSIs, however, I first had to enlist the support of probation officers in giving me the names of offenders for whom they had composed the PSI. This was not a problem for 1983 cases, which were still current, but few of the probation officers had complete records of the PSIs they had written in 1981 and 1979. This situation complicated the process of data collection because the PSIs are not cross-indexed according to author; they are filed in the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit only by name and the case number assigned to each case. Assisted by the indefatigable George Agnello, Supervisor of Records, I tried every means possible to locate these earlier PSIs, short of a hand search through thousands of files. When I had exhausted these means and still did not have my representative sample for each participant, I began the hand search. After many months of combing files, I began to feel like a compulsive baseball card collector eager to find just one more "Mike Cahill, 1981" or "Larry Arnow, 1979." This period of data collection extended for 18 months between 1983-1985. 46 Interviewing Judges In choosing a representative sample of judges for this study, I asked the participating probation officers, managers and supervisors to provide me with a list of judges who they believed represented differing attitudes toward the PSI and toward sentencing alternatives. I was aware that some judges reputedly do not read anything but the recommendation for sentencing, while others read the entire PSI carefully and send it back to the district office if it is not sufficiently stocked with verifiable detail. In addition, some judges have developed reputations for light sentencing, others for more severe penalties. From these lists I culled four representative judges, each of whom agreed to meet with me. Generally, judges agreed to sandwich in a meeting between trials. As a result, I witnessed a number of trials as I waited for judges, during which the real-world significance of the PSI became very clear. At sentencing I heard the judge sum up the case before the defendant and the assembled lawyers: "I have read the presentence report and heard the testimony at the trial ..." he/she would conclude, "I sentence you to . . . " Even though the judges were very busy, each one spoke with me for 30 to 60 minutes with a tape recorder 47 present and a guarantee of anonymity. All were interested in this study and willing to cooperate; several gave me their home phone numbers in case I wanted to ask follow-up questions. During the course of these interviews judges spoke freely about their attitudes toward modifications in the design of the PSI, toward the relationship of the probation officer and the judge and the relationship between the PSI and the "doing of justice." Interviews were conducted over a two-month period in 1985. 48 Chapter Three Data Evaluation I— the Procedure Statement The presentence investigation (PSI) presents a social history of the defendant that assesses his ability to function in society. It is frequently described as "the crucial document linking the judge, who must select the appropriate sentence, to an information base without which the sentence would lack justice or wisdom, or both" (McAnany 1472). Traditionally, this document, which is a "strategy for encompassing a situation" (Burke, Philosphy 109), has also conveyed an attitude toward the offender. The plan for dealing with the offender has been governed, for almost one hundred years, by a belief in the state's ability and responsibility to rehabilitate the offender. There are three rhetorically significant variables related to the PSI: the information that is deemed necessary for inclusion; the overall form of the report itself; and the structure of the discourse within the report. These components are all described in an document called the procedure statement. 49 Each time the PSI undergoes any revision, the Michigan Department of Corrections issues a new procedure statement to probation officers providing them with guidelines and directives about the PSI*s content and composition. The procedure statement thus offers a preliminary study of attitude, i.e., it "sets the scene" for the PSI's composition. One must, therefore, examine the context for writing as established by the procedure statements in order to understand changes in the probation officers' writing performance as well as changes in their attitudes toward their writing (subjects to be examined in Chapter Four). The procedure statement, in turn, must be analyzed as discourse shaped by powerful scenic constraints. The Procedure Statement and the Justice System Rhetorical inquiry deals with "background" information because "the scene contains the act." As Burke further explains in A Grammar of Motives, "it is a principle of drama that the nature of acts and agents should be consistent with the nature of scene" (3). Since the state is providing a new "strategy for encompassing a situation" (Burke, Philosophy 109) with each new procedure statement, the "strategy" reveals more about attitude than any other variable in the scene:act ratio. 50 To chart the evolving attitudes toward three interrelated subjects: the rhetorical intention embedded in the document, the ethos of the probation officer and community attitudes toward offenders, this chapter will examine three procedure statements, from 1956, 1980, and 1983. Chapter Four will then examine the probation officers' responses to these procedure statements. The 1956 statement was obtained from a probation officer who was not part of the informant group for this study, but who, nevertheless, supported this research with documents from his unusually extensive files. This 1956 procedure statement statement was composed by Detroit-area corrections officials who were then under the jurisdiction of the Recorder's Court in Detroit. Embedded within the document are attitudes that reflect the then-dominant philosophy of rehabilitation. In 1980, when the state centralized the Corrections Department, it issued a new procedure statement revealing changes in procedures as well as in attitude toward the offender. Three years later, during a period of intense financial, legal and social pressure, the state issued a new procedure statement that superseded the 1980 statement. This one revealed even greater attitudinal changes toward the offender and probation officer. 51 Background In the late 1950s, the United States was experiencing post-war economic expansion. Jobs were plentiful, and, thanks to the 6.1. Bill,-so were opportunities for education and re-training. President Eisenhower, who symbolized responsible leadership and moderate domestic policies, had been re-elected on a platform stressing a balanced budget and minimal government activity in business and agriculture. Given this climate of prosperity and growth, with few drug problems and limited white consciousness of racial problems, federal and local attitudes toward the criminal offender remained much as they had been 50 years earlier when William Healey called for an "individual study of the young criminal" that would "provide insight into his character and personality . . . to discover those salient factors that underlie his offense and his conduct in general" (Carter, Handbook 4). The social work or medical model of rehabilitation still held sway, as demonstrated by the 1956 "Outline for the Presentence Investigation" (Appendix B). A procedure statement from that period, it served to instruct the probation officer in the form and content of the PSI. In a two-page introduction to the various sections of the PSI, 52 the state reveals its medical/social work-inspired attitudes toward rehabilitation: In making an investigation, the probation officer should interview the defendant and as many other persons as necessary to determine the social, economic and criminal history of the defendant. All available means should be utilized which may throw new light on the character and tendencies of the defendant and verify or check his statements and those of others. The probation officer’s purpose in the investigation should be to discover all the pertinent facts and by analysis to arrive at a true picture of the defendant's character, aptitudes, tendencies, desires, ambition, problems, and outlook on life [author's emphasis J. To further emphasize the analytic purpose of the PSI, the state adds: This new outline stresses the importance of finding out why the offender committed this offense [author's emphasis]. Was it a deep seated personality problem or one of many other possible reasons? Our whole approach must be one of finding reasons and not fault. The procedure statement also clearly articulates the ethos of the ideal probation officer: Obviously, a probation officer who merely gathers factual information, no matter how adequately, is not fulfilling his whole obligation in the matter of the presentence investigation report. In other words, something more is implied in the making of a presentence investigation report than in the making of a presentence investigation— that is, interpretations, evaluations, and observations [author's emphasis]. However, it is axiomatic that the investigator must be objective. According to this document, the probation officer was permitted to determine what issues to emphasize in the report and what to delete. The report: 53 gives considerable latitude to the investigator in his selection of points of emphasis and it must be understood that sub-headings and quotes can be used in any section of this outline with the probation officer using his best judgment. It is expected that the form of presentation will be uniformly used [author's emphasis.] In 1956 the form of the PSI consisted of a "Report to the Court," or case summary, that was followed by an extensive personal history of the offender. Because of concerns that lengthy "summaries" would be followed by lengthy histories, the writers of the procedure statement suggested that the summary section be reduced to "perhaps ten lines," with the balance of the report devoted to an "Evaluation and Plan." The writers were very specific about the form and purpose of the discourse in the evaluation: The Evaluation should be written in narrative form so that the judge can get as complete a picture as possible as to the strengths, the weaknesses, the problems, the attitude, and the potential of the offender. In the lengthy second half of the PSI, the "Offender's Personal History," the probation officer was to "flesh out" general information presented in the evaluation, thus creating a two-tiered discourse similar in intention to Christensen's "levels of generality" (New Rhetoric 29). In the section labeled "Family Background and Early Life," the probation officer was instructed to provide: 54 a narrative, descriptive picture of the offender's family and his early life at home, up to the point where the offender permanently left the parental or foster-home, as the case may be. Compare the offender's status with that of other siblings or step- siblings. One of the things we want to discuss here is the general pattern of living of the family. We might note the parent's aspirations for the offender, their educational levels, criminal tendencies . . . What were the moral and ethical standards and attitudes of members of the family toward each other. The closeness of the family group and the quality and type of family recreation or any significant material relative to developmental history (particularly symptomatic behavior such as enuresis, signs of nervousness, temper, tantrums, truancy, etc.) should be included here. Other sections of the "Offender's Personal History," including marital history, education, employment and economic situation, demonstrate the same concern for details. The probation officer is encouraged to "include as complete a picture as you can of the total marriage situation." Further exhortations include the following: This is a history of the offender's schooling and his adjustments while in school . . . Your evaluation of his basic intelligence is important; Give here a general picture of his over-all employment record . . . Rates of shift, tendency toward betterment and his attitude toward his boss are important . . . certainly an accurate evaluation of the offender as a worker is important; Does he have any ambitions to improve his economic status? Always be alert. Make evaluations. The procedure statement assumes that the writer is a responsible professional who has skills at gathering 55 relevant data and interviewing the defendant that are integral to the corrections process. In composing elaborate narratives analyzing the defendant’s economic, social and criminal history, the probation officer writer was to "present a true picture of the defendant." Essentially, the writer would be offering a "heaping up of emotional facts" about the offender in narrative form (Burke, Philosophy 148). With its clear "emotional weightings" and deeply moral intent, the procedure statement attempts to achieve what Kenneth Burke describes as the "poetic ideal." By gathering and shaping the plethora of information sought by the procedure statement, the probation officer would display the "scope, range, relevancy, accuracy," and "applicability" of his perspective (Philosophy 145), and in the process shape his own ethos. He would thus "attain a full moral act" by offering a perspective atop all the conflicts of attitude" [author's emphasis] (Burke, Philosophy 148). As Kenneth Burke reminds us in "Semantic and Poetic Meaning," "the style selected will mold the character of the selector" (Philosophy 148). Some excesses of inquiry, such as Foucault ascribed to corrections officials in Discipline and Punish, could surely be discovered in such a heaping of emotional facts. 56 Nevertheless, the aims of inquiry were unquestionably altruistic and very much in tune with then-current attitudes toward the "deviant" individual. Derived from a medical/social work model of rehabilitation, the 1956 procedure statement was informed by some underlying premises, with which both the community and the state were in agreement: that there were certain desirable social and personal characteristics which every individual should possess; that it was the community's responsibility to use its resources, through the offices of the probation officer, to help the offender develop these characteristics for the protection of society and the betterment of the individual. The 1956 procedure statement presents the value system against which the defendant was to be measured. Honesty, freedom from debt, and loyalty to employer--values of particular importance to a work-centered culture--were stressed. Thus, if a man had been employed by the same company for 10 years and had maintained a good credit rating, he was considered a low risk to society. The job of the probation officer was equally well- delineated by the procedure statement of 1956. He would provide extensive analyses of the defendant that would enable the judge to chart a course for action. At this 57 period in time, the probation officers in Recorder's Court did not provide a recommendation for sentencing unless this action was approved by the judge. Over the next 20 years, most states began- to require such a recommendation for sentencing in the presentence investigation. Because this requirement altered the role of the probation officer, it modified the rhetorical intention of the PSI. 1979-83 In the late 1970s, 20 years after the above procedure statement was written, the United States was in the midst of an economic recession that particularly affected the state of Michigan. The auto industry, which employed hundreds of thousands of workers in the Detroit area, was being devastated by foreign competition. To trim costs, the automotive giants laid off employees, and these layoffs drove Detroit's jobless rate to the highest in the nation. Small automobile-related businesses and industries, unable to survive this "bottoming out," either closed or moved to more economically-promising areas like the Southwest. They were followed by thousands of laid-off workers looking for new jobs. As the populations of Texas and California rose, Michigan's population declined. The loss of major and subsidiary industries severely eroded both Michigan and Detroit's tax-base. Faced with a 58 drastic loss of income and no prospects for recovery, all state and municipal offices instituted stringent belt- tightening policies. For example, during the years 1977- 1983, no new probation officers were hired despite an increased caseload that was being created, in part, by rising joblessness and was fueled by growing availability and use of addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Court dockets were backlogged by an increasing number of offenders who were largely from Detroit's "underclass" (Harrington). These (primarily) young men were either victims or perpetrators of drug-related crimes; many were also repeat offenders, people the system had not "rehabilitated." All these factors, including growing public concern about an escalating crime rate, set the scene for a return to retributive attitudes toward the offender, attitudes embedded in what was coming to be called the "justice model" of corrections (Fogel). Perry M. Johnson, then state Director of Corrections, responded to supporters of the "justice model" in a speech to the 1979 American Corrections Association Convention. After acknowledging that some aspects of the "justice model" were appealing, i.e., the coupling of the terms "fairness" with "justice," he added, "I have serious and fundamental objections to some aspects of the "justice model" (1). 59 In clarification of his position, Johnson asserted that the mission of the corrections system was not fairness. It was self-evident that bureaucratic systems should operate fairly. According to Johnson, a call to "fairness" confused the issue of how a mission should be carried out with the "definition of what that mission is or should be" (3). The real mission of corrections, he ventured, was protection. It defended the public from crime, but it did not assure the public that two housebreakers would receive exactly the same penalty. Johnson added that a "condition and restraint upon the mission of public protection is fairness and justice" (5). Recognizing the adverse effects of declining public resources and the erosion of the public's confidence in corrections, he urged the audience to take a clear-eyed look at the premises and promises of the "justice model": We must be pragmatic about this and abandon our perpetual infatuation with one fad after another. In ' recent memory we have gone from vengeance, to deterrence, to a commitment to rehabilitation. This latter commitment became so strong that we even changed our name to "corrections" to reflect our belief in it. And now we seem to be going full cycle to where at least one state says that the purpose of prison is simply punishment . . . I think we need to be both effective and fair. But there is no simple way to do that (5). Johnson reminded his audience, which consisted of fellow corrections officials, that certain policies have 60 proven valuable and should not be abandoned to new "fads" in corrections philosophy: One of these, rehabilitation, is now unfashionable and our predecessors are being maligned for having advocated it. But the founders of modern day corrections are to be commended, not condemned, for developing this concept. Because their ideal made good sense. For if rehabilitation can be accomplished, if life styles can be changed so offenders live crime free, there is no more humane or effective way to contribute to a reduction of crime. The ideal was proper and deserved to be tried. Where we went wrong was that we claimed we could impose rehabilitation without any evidence that this was true, and then ignored negative results when they became available (6). Johnson faulted the "justice model" in its not providing any incentive to "participate in self-help programs." He urged that "work toward a system which enhances personal responsibility and accountability, not one which does the opposite" (8). In the fifties and sixties, financial resources were available on the state and local levels to support prevailing attitudes toward offenders and the corresponding training of probation officers, which served to maintain a system described by Johnson as one that "enhances responsibility and accountability." The Department of Corrections generally endorsed the "medical" or "mental health" model of rehabilitation and employed probation officers who had been trained in social work and 61 psychiatric social work as counselors for offenders. According to John Paul, who served as the chief probation officer in Wayne County, most probation officers adopted "Rogerian" methods to treat offenders, i.e., "we'll talk until you understand why you did it" (Personal interview, August 13, 1986). Paul claims these methods were largely ineffectual. While some probation officers were trained in counselling, others were not, resulting in a situation in which "most probation officers had no other tools but good intentions . . . offenders needed something else" (Personal interview, August 13, 1986). Studies began appearing in sociology and criminology journals documenting the failure of many "rehabilitative" programs (Martinson, 1976). In 1967, as part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice published The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, which rejects the probation officer's role as therapist: "Probation officers and parole officers are not the omnipotent therapists evoked by the traditional propaganda and cannot deliver 'rehabilitation' through their own efforts" (Nelson 1). By the late seventies, the ethics and social utility of the rehabilitative ideal had been eclipsed by a new 62 metaphor: the probation officer as a "broker of services." In this role the probation officer was one who helped the offender re-enter society by identifying those rehabilitative services the offender needed— drug- rehabilitation, job-retraining, alcohol detoxification, spouse abuse programs, adult education--and then ensuring that the offender participated in these programs during the probationary period. Corrections in Michigan 1980-83 - A Legal Framework On April 1, 1980, the state of Michigan took over the business of corrections, removing control from the County of Wayne, which operated Recorders Court, and the circuit Courts, which controlled the outlying areas. With the passage of House Bills 4402, 5203 and 4477, "all probation personnel in the circuit court of this state and recorder's court of the city of Detroit" were considered "state employees for purposes of supervision and direction. New employees who were hired as probation personnel were considered members of the state classified civil service" (Amendment to Act 89, P.A. 1979). Passage of these bills had several subsidiary effects. First, Section 14 of the bill restated the general principle of a presentence investigation for "any person charged with a felony" and 63 for those charged with a misdemeanor if the judge so required. According to the law: The probation officer shall inquire into the antecedents, character, and circumstance of the person and shall report in writing to the court. The presentence investigation report shall include an evaluation of and a prognosis for the person's adjustment in the community based on factual information contained in the report. The report shall include a specific written recommendation for disposition based on the evaluation and other information prescribed by the assistant director of the department of corrections in charge of probation. The new law not only turned long-standing practice— the issuance of the PSI--into policy, it also mandated the inclusion of a recommendation for sentencing, thus implicitly adding another rhetorical objective to the document--persuasion. The probation officer was indirectly charged with providing sufficient relevant information in the body of the PSI to justify his recommendation for sentencing. This state takeover also made state employees out of local probation officers. Those "old soldiers," who are described in Chapter Four, were deeply disturbed by the effect this takeover might have on their seniority rights, longevity and retirement. Many felt they had not been adequately consulted about the consequences of this action. They believed that, as valued, respected probation officers, their opinions should have been solicited. For 64 some, the residual effects of state takeover were a lingering perception of unfair treatment and animosity toward the administrators who now controlled their futures. The Influence of Disclosure Laws After state takeover, a new procedure statement was issued that identified legal issues pertinent to the writing of the PSI. The most notable of these were the "disclosure laws" of 1973 (General Court Rule 785.12) that allowed the defendant's lawyer to inspect the PSI and "explain or controvert any factual representations disclosed" (see 1981 procedure statement for complete ruling). The disclosure laws had been enacted to protect the rights of the accused who previously had no recourse if the probation officer included false or misleading information in the PSI. A "privileged" document, the PSI was passed directly from the probation officer to the judge who used the information it contained to determine sentencing. If the offender was imprisoned, the document followed him into the prison system, where misinformation might diminish the offender's chances for special prison programs and parole. The 1973 law specifically allowed the defendant's counsel to read the PSI. While it did not so empower the defendant, the defendant was legally entitled to inspect the 65 document if he had no counsel. These new readers brought new concerns: the possibility of lawsuits. The 1981 procedure statement, with its emphasis on relevant and "verifiable" information, reflects these concerns: The primary purpose of the presentence investigation is to provide the court with timely, relevant, and accurate data so that it may select the most appropriate sentencing alternative and correctional disposition. Another major change in the 1981 procedure statement is the amount of information required for inclusion in the PSI. Contributing to this change was the pioneering work by Carter who demonstrated that most judges based sentencing decisions on only three or four major bits of information, including past criminal record and nature of offense (Carter, 1967). Less information also reduced the material that had to be verified and thus decreased the risk of legal rebuttal. The Form of the 1980 PSI The new form of the PSI issued after state takeover was strongly influenced by the disclosure laws, the need to process large numbers of offenders, and the need to reduce the amount of time each judge spent on a case. Many judges had requested that salient issues, like past criminal 66 history, be placed up front in the report so that the judge could see a synopsis of the case. The 1980 procedure statement mandates both the content and form of the PSI. Responding to the demands of judges for more readable reports, the procedure statement specified that basic information about the offense, judge and penalty were to be placed on the top of the cover sheet of the PSI (Appendix C). The first item in the PSI was a "Summary" of the case, followed by the "Evaluation and Plan," which would describe in general the background of the defendant. The "Recommendation for Sentencing" concluded the opening pages of the PSI. Then came the "Basic Information Sheet," a data sheet containing slots for information about personal and criminal history. The information on the data sheet would be used by several bureaucratic divisions, including the court, prison, parole board, and, in some cases, mental institutions. Following this data sheet, was the "Investigator's Description of the Offense," the "Offender's Description of the Offense" and the "Previous Criminal Record. The last portion of the 1981 PSI contains the "Offender's Personal History," described by such headings as "marital status," "home and neighborhood," "education." This section was intended to "flesh out" the early pages of the PSI. It was intended to 67 give the judge more detailed information about the offender's life that would help in determining a fair and equitable sentence. This form has a diamond shape. A few salient "bits" of information are followed by the Evaluation and Plan and the recommendation for sentencing. The judge can stop reading at the point of the recommendation— the wide midpoint of the diamond. If he desired more detailed information about the defendant, he could continue reading the "Offender's Personal History." Previous reports did not provide this "midpoint," which can also serve as a jumping-off point for the reader. These earlier PSIs, constructed in the shape of a triangle, were large-scale reports requiring the reader's full attention until the conclusion. 1980 Procedure Statement; Attitude Despite changes in the social, economic and legal scene, the 1980 procedure statement reflects some of the same attitudes toward rehabilitation and the social work role of the probation officer as the 1956 statement. The opening paragraph describes the PSI as a "thorough study of the individual characteristics and problems of the offender." Under the heading "Evaluation and Plan,” the probation officer is instructed to provide an evaluation of 68 the defendant's "strengths and weaknesses, abilities, readiness for change, and established behavior patterns based on the factual material described in the body of the report." In the spirit of the 1956 statement, the probation officer is encouraged to "develop some hypothesis about the facts which appear to be contributing to the individual's involvement in criminal behavior." Under headings that require more extensive fact- gathering, like "Offender's Personal History," the probation officer is directed to use the narrative form of discourse: Give a narrative description of the offender's family and his/her early life at home up to the point where he/she permanently left the parental residence or foster home. Discuss the general pattern of living of the family and indication of criminal behavior by other members. Note the parents' aspirations for the offender. Significant material relative to developmental history, particularly symptomatic behavior such as enuresis, signs of nervousness, temper tantrums, truancy, etc., should be included here . . . Under "Marital History" the probation is supposed to provide: a complete history of the offender's marriages or other living arrangements . . . include as complete a picture as you can of the total marriage. Give the attitude of the marriage partners toward each other, the degree to which the offender has been able to assume marital and parental responsibility ..." The heading "Socialization" recalls the social-work 69 model of the 1956 procedure statement. Here the probation officer is instructed to: comment here on the individual's pattern of interaction with others and the community, and the degree to which it may constitute a problem. This will invariably tie in closely with psychological problems referred to in the preceding section. Be concerned here with overall personality characteristics. The interview should be a valuable source for getting some indications of the nature of his/her ability to interact with others. Try to obtain some idea of the offender's perception of himself/herself and how he/she thinks others perceive him/her. The impetus for analysis remains strong in this procedure statement, but the depth and breadth of the analysis has shrunk. While the probation officer is given wider latitude about what to include and exclude from the report, he may also interpret this directive as a reason to write a much shorter report: "In completing the Body of the Report, the key ingredient is flexibility. The agent should use only those headings that are appropriate for decision making in the current case." 1982-1983: Further Incentives for Change In the early eighties, prison overcrowding in Michigan had reached such acute proportions that Governor Milliken and the legislature initiated a highly-controversial "early release" program. Under this program, prison officials could release non-assaultive prisoners who had amassed 70 "good time" in prison as much as six months earlier than their court-appointed release date, thus freeing space for the crush of incoming prisoners. The volume of prisoners posed acute problems for prisons, for judges and for probation officers. A series of meetings was conducted in late 1981 and early '82 to determine how the volume of the PSI could be reduced, not simply to lighten the workload on probation officers, but, more importantly, to facilitate processing by judges. Robert LeCureaux, then Director of the Detroit Office of the Department of Corrections, attended those meetings and issued a memorandum to area managers about the results. According to his memorandum, "both benches have requested that the probation department provide a cover sheet to the presentence investigation that will provide key information needed by the judge at sentencing." In addition to the request for a cover sheet, the memo details others areas of change primarily concentrating on methods of reducing the amount of information included in the PSI. Sensitive to the attitudes of probation officers, LeCureaux understood how they might react to a demand for less information in the PSI. In the first paragraph of the memorandum, he assured managers, who would relate this information to their probation officers, that "changes were 71 not made with the intention of eliminating data, but that professional judgment be used to determine the relevancy of information.” Probation officers were being told to use information only if it related to the case at hand (Memorandum, 1982). While some major changes in format and content resulted from demands by the bench, others were initiated in direct response to legislation passed in 1982. Under the provisions of GCR 785.12 and PA 61, which became effective April 1, 1983, "the Court must permit the prosecutor, the defendant's attorney, and the defendant to review the PSI prior to sentencing.” This legislation enlarged the audience for the PSI to include the defendant, who previously did not have legal access to the report. The 1983 procedure statement reflects the state's concern that information included in the PSI be accurate: The field agent must sign the report and is responsible for the accuracy of all information included in the report. Verification of information in the report is critical because of the report's importance at sentencing and the fact that the information may be challenged at sentencing by the defendant's attorney or defendant. If the court finds that the challenged information is inaccurate or irrelevant, that finding will be made part of the court record, and the inaccurate or irrelevant information must be stricken from the report prior to distribution [author's emphasis]. 72 Fearing lawsuits generated from carelessly edited documents, the State Department of Corrections sponsored a training session for all state probation supervisors, directed by Dwight Stevenson, co-author of Designing Technical Reports. A highly-respected professional from the University of Michigan, Stevenson was charged with streamlining the 1983 version of the PSI to make it more readable for judges, less time-consuming to write for probation officers, and less likely to include law-suit provoking errors. After completing the redesign of the PSI, Stevenson conducted the report-writing training session that had very clear objectives: to teach supervisors to write top-down reports, what Linda Flower calls "reader-based" reports; and to move probation officers away from writing time-consuming, sometimes discursive reports. In one eight-hour session, the supervisors wrote and critiqued probation reports. They were then expected to return to their district offices and train their respective staff members to include only the essential facts of the case in their reports and to discern and eliminate unessential facts, subjective statements and careless, potentially damaging diction errors. Stevenson also developed a video-taped training film for use by the Department of Corrections in training 73 probation officers away from verbosity and subjective, unsupported claims about the defendant and toward a ' ’top- down” style of organization. Because Stevenson's theories of design clearly inform the structure and content of the 1983 PSI, they require explanation. The PSI as Technical Report Stevenson's primary influence was to reconstitute the PSI as a technical report. While older PSIs resemble sociological studies, post-1983 reports resemble, by design, a form of legal-technical report. In Designing Technical Reports, Stevenson distinguishes between the needs of the organization and the needs of individual writers: "the unreflective report writer, especially one who has failed to put on his rhetorical hat, mistakenly designs his report in terms of what he has done, that is from particular to general" (50). But particulars do not interest decision-makers. According to Stevenson, "the decision-maker has no interest in the details of the technical investigation itself (48)." Instead a report that addresses decision-makers must provide only "certain types of information to implement the conclusion and recommendation" (47). 74 Technical reports are designed to be used by decision makers to solve problems in organizations, Stevenson asserts. Therefore, they should not be laid out "cafeteria fashion," a form which encourages the reader to pick up randomly what facts he wants. Rather they should have, a special "architecture" that places conclusions first, so the decision-maker can "use the report without really reading it" (48). The form of the 1983 PSI reflects the influence of Stevenson and the demands of judges in Michigan. For the first time, a cover sheet is provided that lays out "bands" of information about the defendant in easily accessible form (see sample in Appendix D). The information included data which research had shown to be most significant to decision-making, i.e., current conviction, prior record, and personal history. The cover sheet makes no attempt to offer details of the case but provides boxes for the probation officer to check regarding "substance abuse history" (yes - no), "grade-level achieved" (blank slot), and "currently employed" (yes - no). The most rhetorically significant addition to the cover sheet is the recommendation for sentencing. In the early PSIs, the recommendation, if it was made at all, was appended to the end of the report. In 1980, the recommendation was located after the "Evaluation and Plan." In this version of the PSI, the recommendation appears on the first page, giving the report the shape of an inverted triangle: major decision first, followed by supporting details. The decision-maker, the judge, does not have to look past the first page for the probation officer's "decision" about the defendant if he/she does not choose to do so. Without reading any supporting information, the judge can dispatch the case using just the cover-sheet information. Interviews conducted with probation officers for this study indicate that many believe a large number of judges do just that. The 1983 Procedure Statement Like earlier procedure statements, the 1983 version reflects attitudes toward the offender, the writer of the report, the probation officer and the political, economic and social context of the period. The 1983 statement marks the demise of the rehabilitative ideal in corrections. It no longer describes the PSI as a "thorough study of the individual." Instead, it opens with directives about the time-frame for the report, and more important, about the legal implications of the disclosure laws. A special section, "Writing the PSI," has been added, which admonishes the probation officer to "ensure that your 76 statements are clear, concise and accurate. Avoid repeating information whenever possible." Sections that were mandatory in previous PSIs are now made "additional"; they are to be developed only if "the information is significant to sentencing." These sections include: "Employment and Economic Status," "Education," "Substance Abuse," and "Mental and Physical Health." Two major changes occur in the "Evaluation and Plan" section. The probation officer is no longer asked to "develop some hypothesis about the facts which appear to be contributing to the individual's involvement in criminal behavior." He is asked instead, to "state (his) analysis of the defendant's strengths, weaknesses, abilities, readiness for improvement, and established behavior patterns based on the factual material obtained in the investigation." The 1983 procedure statement rejects the generation of hypotheses. The form of discourse has been altered as well. While the 1980 procedure statement incorporated a chronology that showed the development of factors in the defendant's social history, this version replaces chronology with a "top-down" form created by Dwight Stevenson. In a "Dictator's Guide" (Appendix E) that accompanies the 1983 procedure statement, Dwight Stevenson defines the structure of the "Evaluation 77 and Plan" section as a one-to-three paragraph assessment of the defendant's strengths and weaknesses, with a prognosis for the future. Narrative is removed from other sections as well, including "marriage and the family." Formerly, the probation officers were asked to "give a narrative description of the offender's family, etc." Here they are asked to "list the name, relationship, age and address of the defendant's immediate family" and to "briefly report the significant facts of the defendant's marital relationships, or other living arrangements as they relate to his/her past behavior or expected future adjustment." Because the PSI is, in essence, a social history of the defendant and an assessment of his ability to function in society, the narrative form has served to contextualize the facts of the defendant's life and his crime. The recommendation for sentencing has served as a logical conclusion to the information presented in the report. As recently as 1980, judges had to read through the background summary and "Evaluation and Plan" in order to reach the recommendation. In form and content, the new PSI reflects changes in an underlying philosophy of criminal justice and the displacement of the long-established "rehabilitative 78 ideal.” Political and economic changes in Michigan, and elsewhere in the country, have created new "dramatic alignments" that have triggered significant, and potentially far-reaching, changes in the justice system. A diminishing interest in rehabilitating offenders corresponds with a growing interest in eliminating the indeterminate sentence that has allowed judges considerable discretion in sentencing. A return to the "classic" or "justice" model of corrections has stimulated interest in narrower, more predictable sentences. In Michigan, as well as other states, long-held policies of indeterminate sentencing are being replaced by mandatory sentencing guidelines that appear to diminish the judge's need to consider the circumstances of the crime and the criminal's life before sentencing. Scene:Act:Agent Stripping out narrative, hypothesis, detail and example remakes the rhetorical character of the 1983 PSI. What formerly was a narrative about the defendant, rich wit: implication, occasional redundancy and efforts at persuasion has become--through strategic document design-- what Kenneth Burke calls a report that "attempts to describe events after the analogy of the chart." Earlier 79 PSIs envisioned a "heaping up of . . . emotional facts, playing them off against one another, inviting them to reinforce and contradict one another and seeking to make this active participation itself a major ingredient of the vision" (Philosophy 148). The current PSI reflects what Burke calls the "semantic ideal" that attempts to create a description by the elimination of attitude, that tries to "cut away, to abstract all emotional factors that complicate the objective clarity of meaning" [author's emphasis] (Philosophy 148). Unlike the poetic ideal that envisions a vocabulary that goes through drama, the semantic ideal attempts the "programmatic elimination of a weighted vocabulary" [author's emphasis] (Philosophy 149) and the diminution of the observer's role. Probation officers previously gathered and shaped facts, impressions and examples "with sufficient realistic accuracy to prepare an image for action." The newest PSI, following the semantic ideal, diminishes their status as writers and their ethos as professionals. They no longer create discourse but rather, "define situations with sufficient realistic accuracy to prepare an adequate chart for action" (Philosophy 149). 80 The new form enshrining the semantic ideal acts to anesthetize the reader as well, numbing the judge to individual differences in defendants. Judge Lenore Stokes (pseudonym) asserts that the judge must read the PSI to discover the "essential truth" about the defendant. Sufficient information must be provided in the report so that the judge can find that "essential truth" and so distinguish defendants who need punishment and are a danger to the community from those who can benefit from probation. Judge Ford argues that the probation officer should "put everything in the report, go to the defendant’s neighborhood, get stories from his teachers, his mother, for in this information you will find an essential thread of truth" (Personal interview, September 1985). Not all judges and corrections administrators agreed with Judge Stokes. Tom Patten, Deputy Director of Corrections in Michigan and chief writer of the 1983 procedure statement, strongly supports Stevenson’s attempts to "streamline" the report. In an interview, he stated that Stevenson's influence had been "absolutely phenomenal" because he "impressed" probation officers who responded to "business-type" writing. "That's one of the reasons why I think we were so 81 pleased with Stevenson's work . . . It's efficiency in writing, to some extent" (Personal interview, July 1985). Chapter Four will examine the probation officers' writing performance and attitudes toward writing. 82 Chapter Four The Probation Officer Composes the Presentence Investigation: 1979-1983 Background Probation officers are professionally responsible for the amount, quality and presentation of the information they gather for the presentence investigation (PSI). During the span of their careers they develop professional reputations--a professional ethos--based largely on the quality of their PSIs. These written reports are monitored by supervisors who oversee the work of about 10 probation officers. If the report is unsatisfactory in content, form or tone, the supervisor will request revisions. If the supervisor neglects to read the report, and the sentencing judge finds the information insufficient or unverified, both supervisor and probation officer share the blame. Traditionally, the probation officer is supposed to act as a credible witness for the defendant, one who possesses a judge's impartiality, a lawyer's responsiveness to evidence, a policeman's caution, and a social worker's sensitivity to human problems. The function that is 83 emphasized is generally determined by the historical period in which the probation officer is working. For example, PSIs written during the fifties show that the goals of the probation officer were comparable with those of the social worker. PSIs from this period presented extensive information about the defendant, his family and work history. These earlier reports also required that the probation officer provide extensive analyses of the defendant's ability to become a "useful" member of society. Because the PSI was the number one priority of the probation officer, he could spend weeks compiling and writing the report. However, the probation officer's rhetorical situation and the intention embedded in the procedure statement that governs the composition of the PSI have altered dramatically in the past decade, as described in Chapter Three. The Writer's Intention Like other researchers who examine writing produced in nonacademic settings (Odell & Goswami, 1985), I have assumed that these professionals had "tacit knowledge" (Polanyi and Prosch) of writing strategies that enabled them to carry out the rhetorical intention set forth in earlier procedure statements. Since this rhetorical 84 intention was altered by a procedure statement that dictated a top-down form, would these writers be able to use the same strategies? After collecting samples of PSIs from each probation officer in the sample groups, I conducted non-structured formal interviews with those who consented to see me. Only two refused, as explained in Chapter One. The purpose of these interviews was to correlate the writers' performance with their attitudes toward state-mandated changes, to ascertain whether these officers felt they could carry out their rhetorical intentions while composing a PSI using the new form. Because probation officers do not readily use the term "rhetorical implications," any more than rhetoricians sprinkle their conversations with "CCW" or "HYTA," my interview questions attempted to get at "tacit" rhetorical knowledge by having probation officers talk about their attitudes toward writing, the role of writing in their work and the recognition they received from composing a good PSI. I wanted to know whether the writers used special writing strategies or techniques to impress salient facts upon the judge, and whether they believed they were trying to influence the judge's decision when they wrote. Most important, I was interested in how the probation officers positioned themselves, emotionally and professionally, 85 between defendant and judge, for therein lies their "philosophy" of corrections and a possible explication of performance. (See Chapter One for a description of topics covered during interviews.) After examining hundreds of PSIs and conducting many hours of interviews, three categories of probation officers were derived from a cluster of factors: writing performance, attitude toward writing, attitude toward authority and, in part, length of service. This chapter will analyze each category, using one individual to represent others in that category, but drawing on the writing and the comments of these other individuals to demonstrate variations within the group. It will present representative samples of PSIs written over a six-year period (that delete identifying information about the offender), examine the discourse modifications each person made as a response to Stevenson's training, and review what the probation officers said they considered to be the rhetorical significance of those changes. This analysis is preceded by a brief synopsis of each of the three groups to be examined: the "old soldiers," "young professionals" and "disaffected probation officers." 86 The Old Soldiers The men I have labeled "the old soldiers" (they all happened to be men in this group) are seasoned professionals, having served as probation officers for twenty years or more. Unlike those who were hired later, some of these men do not have formal academic degrees; those who have degrees majored in liberal arts subjects like philosophy or sociology. They actively remember the fifties and sixties when the "rehabilitative ideal" was enshrined as the leitmotif of corrections, and their professional "ethos" has been shaped in large part by faith in this belief. Most see their primary responsibility as being fair to the defendants as well as to the community the defendants may threaten. The "old soldier" manages this balancing act with a practiced, but not jaundiced, eye, aware of his responsibility to help the defendant re integrate into society while protecting community members from potential harm. While trying to strike a balance between the two roles implicit in the probation officer's work— social worker and policeman--these professionals tend to identify more with the social worker and respond accordingly. Their chief loyalties are to their profession and to their personal ideals of performance. Their PSIs from 1979-83 are notable 87 for their quality of writing; most "old soldiers" take pride in their writing and consider it a major part of their job and a major reflection of their professional ethos. Most have served under a series of corrections administrations and, because they stand to lose retirement and other benefits accrued under the old system, have been the ones most affected by the state's takeover. One probation officer openly expressed his bitterness; the others seemed almost philosophical about this turn of events, willing to let the courts finally decide the outcome of this issue. The Young Professionals The men and women in the group I have labeled "young professionals" have served 8-15 years in the field of corrections. All have college degrees, primarily in fields like criminology, criminal justice and psychology. Few have degrees in social work, and few exhibit any belief in the "rehabilitative ideal." The notion of prison as a place for rehabilitation currently seems naive; instead, the "young professionals" see themselves as "brokers of services," i.e., as professionals charged with identifying those services which the offenders need to become productive members of society. The "young professionals" recommend services related to drug rehabilitation, 88 education, marriage and job counselling as well as other stipulations of probation in their "Recommendation for Sentencing." However, they are acutely aware of the factors mitigating against the successful implementation of these recommendations. The judge may not concur with their recommendations and therefore may ignore them in the final ruling. The services recommended, like a neighborhood drug rehabilitation clinic, may have disappeared in a recent slash of services by fiscal conservatives. Finally, the offender may not follow the recommendations for probation, despite the probation officer's best efforts to direct the client to rehabilitative activities, like drug and job counselling. Unlike many of the "old soldiers," the "young professionals" do not appear to gain much job satisfaction from counselling offenders. Many explained that they service too great a number of offenders to become involved. Some, especially those on the edge of burnout, named "salary" as the greatest benefit of the job. Most "young professionals" view their jobs pragmatically, as a relatively high-paying occupation— given the minimum entry level requirement of a B.S.--that offers some flexibility in work schedule. 89 Some individuals in this group were actively considering other employment: some had completed degrees in other areas; others were actively pursuing other careers in their off-hours. Most were loyal, not to the profession itself, but to the current administration, and, therefore, would comply with the directives issued. Writing skills vary widely in this group, but all have similar attitudes toward writing. The majority want to "turn out a good pre," whatever the current definition of "good pre" is; however, few define their professional ethos by how well they compose the PSI. The PSI is a product they must produce repeatedly, week in and week out; it therefore needs to be dispatched as quickly as possible. Stevenson's training was welcome to many in this group because it stressed efficiency and time-saving methods in writing. The concept of "efficiency" appeals to many of the "young professionals" who are attracted to the new metaphor of "Corrections as Business." This metaphor is currently replacing the politically and economically- outdated metaphor, "corrections as social agency," a concept more appealing to the "old soldiers." Pragmatism rather than altruism governs the "young professionals" as writers and probation officers. 90 The Disaffected Probation Officers Most probation officers in this group seem weary, beleaguered by a host of administrative demands for which they are insufficiently skilled or motivated to carry out. While the majority of this group have college degrees in areas like criminology and have served as probation officers for 8-10 years, they nevertheless fall into the "low skills" category of writer. Most are still writing the same type of PSI they wrote seven years ago— thin, non descript ive, highly routinized. Those who have tried to adopt Stevenson's techniques have done so with limited, even incongruous results. Some in this group declined to talk to me, fearing that I might be an administration agent sent to examine their methods and motives. More than any of the other groups, the "disaffected probation officers" were suspicious of outsiders. Their loyalties, if they have any, do not include the corrections administration--the perceived agent of many of their problems--or any ideal of professional service. This group seems most interested in self-preservation. Passively resistant to change, many go with the flow, hoping not to be discovered or found out. In interviews, the "disaffected probation officers" were likely to deliver responses that were as routinized as 91 their PSIs. Although some were eager to talk to a receptive outsider, they nevertheless presented themselves as inured to both the plight of the defendant and the needs of the state. They were ultimately immobilized by low skills, a poor attitude and an inability to respond to a growing barrage of administrative directives. Evaluating Writing Skills I initially hypothesized that writing ability might influence whether a probation officer was able to comply with new directives. While this hypothesis proved partially correct, it did not account for the "good" writers who understood the new directives but refused to follow them--information uncovered in the interview stage. An increasing familiarity with the techniques used in PSIs revealed that "good" writers possessed a variety of writing strategies they could use to make an "end run" around state directives. Skilled writers could endow a PSI with "presence" (Perelman) by consciously applying various writing techniques: repetition of key facts, integration of testimony. Unskilled writers rarely discussed writing strategies, viewing the process as a chore. Despite these different viewpoints, the fact remains that the composition of the PSI, whether by a high- or low-skill writer, has a 92 significant effect on the reader judge, and, ultimately, on the "doing of justice" in the United States. The following are descriptions of high-, medium-, and low-skill writers. These categories are comparative and task-specific; that is, they identify skill-levels within this sample only. The categories refer to skills most useful in writing PSIs: syntactic fluency, form fluency, discourse skills of cohesion and coherence and grammar. High-Skill Writers Lexical Fluency: The skilled writer possesses an extensive lexicon and therefore commands a wide variety of verbs that allows him/her to describe actions accurately and memorably. Syntactic Fluency: The skilled writer utilizes a wide variety of sentence structures, especially subordination, that enables him/her to relate cause and effect and to present time sequences accurately. High-skill writers also use the cumulative sentence to indicate similar relationships. There is some use of passive voice. Form Fluency: The skilled writer allows situation to dictate whether he/she will use narrative, deductive or mixed patterns in the discourse section of the PSI, the "Evaluation and Plan." The high-skill writer is also 93 consciously aware of the concept of "levels of generality" and successfully applies it to writing the PSI, i.e., including details that support assertions about defendant as well as testimony from family members that provide reader with perspectives about defendant. This awareness of levels is important because the "Evaluation and Plan" section is supposed to contain general statements about the defendant, giving the judge the gist of information first. The probation officer supplies additional details which flesh out this gist in the later sections of the PSI, under headings like "Marriage and the Family," "Education" and "Job Readiness." Discourse Skills--Cohesion/Coherence: The high-skill writer has a global sense of cohesion, adding necessary connectives, synonyms, pronouns that enable the reader to follow the logic of the evaluation. Grammar; High-skill writers exhibit few, if any, grammatical errors. Medium-Skill Writers Lexical Fluency: Medium-skill writers occasionally use descriptive words or phrases and occasionally depart from use of "to-be" verb. However, these writers tend to rely on several verbs like "admits" or "denies" and stock phrases like "due to the fact that." 94 Syntactic Fluency: Medium-skill writers produce complete but short sentences. They occasionally use subordination, but my sample does not reveal the use of any cumulative sentences. They use passive voice more frequently than the high-skill writers. Form Fluency: Most medium-skill writers use the same forms throughout: consistent narrative; or a type of non form, consisting of paragraphs that are page breaks rather than cohesive units--a result of their having been instructed to organize details in paragraph form. They include some details and personal testimony. Discourse Skills--Cohesion/Coherence: Medium-skill writers make some use of logical connectives and prepositional phrases to mark time or place. Their "Evaluation and Plan" is generally coherent, but they use fewer devices to create that coherence than do high-skill writers. Grammar: Medium-skill writers display some problems with parallel structure and run-on sentences. Low-Skill Writers Lexical Fluency: Low-skill writers have a small lexicon and rely heavily on stock phrases like "to this union was born" and "defendant resides." There is 95 occasional evidence of malapropisms and little or no attempt to create ’ ’ picture-producing" prose. Syntactic Fluency: Low-skill writers display some use of coordination. They produce many awkward sentences A and offer no evidence of cumulative sentence structure or of the concept of levels of generality. Their PSIs show little familiarity with stylistic techniques. Form Fluency: Low-skill writers compose highly routinized PSIs, and seem to be "box-checking," i.e., running down a list of items to be covered. They demonstrate little or no attempt to organize the whole. These writers add few details, either to the "Evaluation and Plan" section or to later sections that are designed for supporting information. They include little or no personal testimony. Discourse Ski11s--Coherence/Cohesion: Low-skill writers rarely use coherence devices. As a result, their PSIs occasionally display skewed logic. Grammar: Low-skill writers have problems with subject-verb agreement, parallel structure and punctuation. Writing Samples In examining the subject of rhetorical adaptation, this study attempts to answer these questions: 96 How do writers of varying skill levels and years of service adapt to changing rhetorical demands? Does a probation officer's relationship to his subject and his audience change when the discourse he regularly produces is altered by document design? Does document design serve to alter the intention of the document itself? An investigation of writing samples from three different periods will first establish a base-line from which to measure later performance, considering such PSI- related issues as use of example, generalization and factual detail, and such general discourse-related issues as overall structure, paragraphing, and coherence. Second, by integrating comments from probation officers with samples of their PSIs, this study will correlate authorial intention with authorial performance. Finally, this study will attempt to discover whether these writers believe their professional ethos has been enhanced or diminished by having to carry out new rhetorical directives. PSI Modifications When he re-conceptualized the PSI in 1983, Dwight Stevenson was responding to powerful "scenic" demands on the state, the judges and probation officers. (See Chapter 97 Two for complete discussion of "scene.") His modifications thus fall into three categories: state-sponsored, audience- sponsored and writer-sponsored. State-sponsored reasons: Disclosure laws had made the state legally liable for any misrepresentations or unsupported generalizations included in the PSI. As part of his training sessions for supervisors, Stevenson demonstrated how to support generalizations about the defendant and when to omit generalizations altogether to prevent lawsuits. Audience-sponsored reasons: A number of judges had requested changes in the form and content of the PSI to facilitate their handling a growing backlog of cases. Some had requested a cover sheet for the PSI that would provide an easy-to-read, one-page synopsis of the facts of the case, with the recommendation for sentencing appended to the bottom of that page. Some judges had also requested shorter PSIs to reduce their reading time. Many believed tljia some PSIs contained unnecessary redundancy and irrelevant facts, although not all judges concurred with this assessment of the PSI's flaws. (For a discussion of these opposing views, see Chapter Seven.) To meet the demands of judges and of the state— that was equally interested in speeding up the wheels of justice--Stevenson redesigned the 98 "Evaluation and Plan" section of the PSI (as well as other sections not included in this study), which had formerly been written in narrative form. Drawing on his training and expertise in technical writing, he designed the "Evaluation and Plan" like the opening of a technical report: conclusion up front, followed by a three paragraph summary of the defendant's strengths, weaknesses and prognosis for future behavior. Writer-sponsored reasons: Designed to facilitate decision-making, the new PSI form also offered some advantages to the probation officer-as-writer. Probation officers were told that "streamlining" the document would reduce their workload. It would also aid the judge-as- reader because it would eliminate the need for material that was irrelevant to decision-making, i.e., background material on military service, religious affiliation, and some information on health history and educational background. In writing the "Evaluation and Plan," the probation officer could employ fewer details, include less personal testimony about the defendant and, in general, rely on the basic facts of the case. Some supervisors and managers were wary of these changes, fearing that the less motivated writers, who were frequently low-skill writers as well, would interpret this move toward shorter PSIs as an * 99 opportunity to do less legwork in the community, less digging for verifiable information about the defendant's past on which to base a recommendation for sentencing. Prison officials, who use information in the PSI for prison placement, programs and parole, shared this concern. Less information in the PSI would give prison officials less of a foundation for their decision making. This inquiry will consider the rhetorical impact of these state-, audience-, and writer-sponsored modifications on the performance and attitude of a representative sample of probation officers. Results The Old Soldiers: Writing Samples (1979-83) and Interviews Mitch Randazzo The following case study of Mitch Randazzo, one of the "old soldiers," traces the writing he has done in response to changing procedure statements, interspersing his comments about his writing intentions along with other comments from Randazzo about the state's changing attitudes toward offenders and probation officers. Like most of the "old-timers," Mitch Randazzo has served 20 years in the Department of Corrections. Formerly a social worker, Mitch expresses concern for offenders, many of whom are severely disadvantaged, emotionally, 100 educationally and financially. But as his comments indicate, he is no pushover; he has a keen eye for dissemblers and "jive-timers." In 1979, Randazzo was writing long PSIs, in keeping with then-current policy. Figure 1 presents a sample "Summary" and "Evaluation," which would be condensed into "Evaluation and Plan" in the PSI of the eighties. The "Summary" is a reader-straining 43-line paragraph; the "Evaluation" is another 22-line paragraph. Randazzo organizes the diverse aspects of the defendant's life chronologically, dispatching the usual background data-- school, marriage and the family, employment--to focus on what he considers the central problem, the defendant's drug addiction. This sample of Randazzo's work is notable for its detail; he gives names, dates and places, obviously identified through extensive legwork. It is also notable for the tone and attitude toward the defendant whom Randazzo describes as one struggling to regain his stability. After establishing his own credibility as witness--"This writer has been supervising the defendant since February 1978"— Randazzo empathetically describes his interaction with the offender: During this period there was severe depression and suicidal feelings which resulted in long 101 Figure 1. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The defendant is a 35-year old native of Birmingham, Alabama. He has been a resident of Detroit since the age of 17. The defendant was raised in a stable environment by both oarents. He was educated in the Birmingham Public Schools System. The defendant quit school in I9 0I while in the 11th grade. He was a B average student. Defendant has never served in the military. He has been married twice. In 1965 he married Mary W believing her to be pregnant. Subsequently this was found to be false, and the marriage was annulled. Then,' on July , 1965i the defendant married Katherine Sue , in Alabama. They have two children ages 5 and 12. The wife is employed as a nurse's aide at Hospital, earning $250, net every two weeks. The defendant presently is working as a shoemaker at two different places. In the morning he works at Shoe Retain on , ar.d in the afternoon he works at Custom Shoe Service, earning $100 a week. Prom 1973 to 1977, the defendant was employed at Chrysler Mack Stamping Plant. While there he had a nervous breakdown in 1976. Then in 1977i after a severe depression and an overdose of his medication, the defendant was placed on medical leave. He encountered difficulty when the company refused to certify him for work, but also fought his compensation claims. This is a continuing struggle. The defendant and his family reside in an upper flat at , Detroit. This is a deteriorated neighborhood, with several gutted houses. The defendant has had a past history of substance abuse involving cough syrup and heroin. Heroin has not presented a serious problem since 1972'. He was In the Northwest Clinic of Herman Kiefer Hospital for two years, ending in 1972. His regular use of cough syrup tapered off in early 1979. Any use now is related to periods of severe depression. The defendant has an extensive history of mental ar.d emcticr.ai problems. There have been four periods of hospitalization since 1974. He has been to State Hospital (1974) anti to Hospital. Presently, the defendat is in treatment at Hospital Mental Health Center with Dr. , psychiatrist. He is diagnosed as schizophrenic in partial remission. His attendance at therapy has been excellent. Mr. , the Assistant Director of Services, indicates that in the last few months the defendant has exhibited greater statzLity. When in difficulty, the defendant has availed himself of the Center's emer gency number. However, it is noted that the defendant did recently allowed himself to run out of medicine. He suffered seizures and was hospitalized from January i960 to January' i9 6 0. The defendant receives Ritalin, Stelazine, and Artane. Drug abuse is now viewed as a major factor at present. The defendant's use of them has been described and an effort at self medication. His prescribed medication is termed as anti-psychotic. EVALUATION: On November 26, 1979 this writer prepared a pre-sentence report on the defendant for an Incident that occurred at approximately the same time as the within offense. The situation appears to be the same at present. It was felt that the defendant has emotional and mental problems which became more explicit during the first half of 1979. This writer has been supervising the defendant since February I9 7 8. During this period there was severe depression and suicidal feelings which resulted in long conversations. It often was an effort to calm the defendant. Due to technicalities of the mental health law, efforts to obtain help for the defendant were hampered. However, in recent months the defendant apparently has'gained stability to the extent that is available to him. He is cooperating in treatment and aopears to be responding better to supervision. He now seeks help when he needs it’ . Last week he Inadvertently allowed his medica tion to lapse. He permitted himself to be hospitalized to regain stability since he has seizures if he does not take his medication. This writer is reluctant to recommend repeated periods of probation. However, after discussing the matter with Mr. , of the Mental Health Center, it appears that the stability presently possessed by the defendant makes treatment viable. It was also stressed to this writer that the defendant requires clear cut, defined guidelines in order to function. 102 conversations. It was often an effort to calm the defendant. Due to technicalities of the mental health law, efforts to obtain help for the defendant were hampered. However, in recent months the defendant has gained stability to the extent that is available to him . . . is cooperating . . . appears to be responding better . . . now seeks help when he needs it. Although the summary and plan are lengthy and not tightly organized, a picture of the defendant emerges that describes his failures, his successes and his pattern of development. Humanistic in tone, Randazzo's PSIs often exhibit genuine interest in the defendant. The social-work model that has shaped this "old soldier's" philosophy of corrections encourages the probation officer, as the representative of community values and attitudes, to analyze the reasons the offender is in conflict with community mores, to identify the areas of dissonance and then assign steps to help the offender align himself with society's norms. Although Randazzo, like other "old soldiers," has been motivated by this model to take an active interest in the defendant, he can also appear as the stern moralist when provoked by a defendant's incorrigible behavior (see Fig. 2: Coleen M.) After presenting Ms. M's failure to withdraw from heroin in his "Evaluation," which will be developed more extensively in the follow-up sections of the PSI, Randazzo offers a generalization about the defendant: "She was defiant and a disruptive influence 103 Figure 2. Coleen M. 11t» in a conation-law relationship for a year from 1973 to 1974. Ehe also had an abortion two years ago. The defendant has usually Maintained employment as a waitress. When arrested In April, 1979* for the within case, she was working at two Jobs. She was a waitress at the Lounge where the within offense occurred. She also was a barmaid at Other than the period of the cocmon-lew relationship and six months in Califor nia in 1976, the defendant's residence usually has been with her parents. They have resided for 30 years at The defendant's substance abuse history begins in l£od. She has used a variety of drugs but her main problem has been heroin. She estimates 10 different occasions when she has withdrawn from it. Her habit reached Its peak In 1978 when she was spending $100.00 a day. From March to April, the defendant was in Project Headline. She quit due to dissatisfaction. On 1579* the defendant entered Rubicon Odyssey House, an in-patient drug abuse treatment facility of 18 to 2k months duration. She continues in treatment there. Her progress Is satisfactory. EVALUATION; The defendant's drug use dates back to her early high school years. She was defiant and a disruptive influence in the hose. Now as an adult drugs are ruining her health and have brought her Into contact with the courts. Due to drugs, she has accomplished little of a positive nature with her life. The long and intense use of drugs by the defendant indicates the need for long and Intense treatment. However, It Is felt that the defendant must realize that she nust sake the most of her opportunity. There will be no further chances. RECOMMENDATIONI In view of the above, it is respectfully recommended that the defen dant be given a period of probation with the special instruction that she remain in treatment in Rubicon Odyssey House until medically dis charged. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The defendant is a £6 year old native of Detroit, Michigan, born on Che was raised by both parents in the of Harper Wcods. While the environment was stasle, the defendant's behavior caused turrcil in the home. The defer.r:ar.t graduated from .icnool in ^ur.e, I; 11 defendant never has been married and has had no children. Ehe did 104 in the home . . . due to drugs she has established little of a positive nature with her life.” He goes on to hypothesize: "the long and intense use of drugs by the defendant indicates the need for long and intense treatment." Randazzo is equally stern with a male drug user, Michael T. (see Fig. 3). He hypothesizes: If some sense of responsibility and maturity is not acquired by the defendant, it is only a matter of time before he is facing confinement at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. The defendant must learn to accept responsibility for his actions. He must learn that he is no longer a juvenile. After describing the life of a petty thief, Tommie J., he concludes: "His recent lifestyle resembles the stereotype of the skid-row alcoholic. This appears to be the course of life he will maintain if there is no intervention." In 1983, the defense counsel would strike such impressions from the PSI as prejudicial (no matter how well documented). In his interview with me, Randazzo reflected upon the purpose of the PSI: My idea of the PSI is that it is a character study, meant for me to get to know the person, get to know why they became involved in the incident and what is the best solution: prison, probation, etc. Once I have done that, since it is for the judge, my assignment is to communicate what I have learned, in a sense to help the judge get to know the person, know what I think and 105 Figure 3. Michael T. EVALUATION: Although the home setting appears to be stable, this writer noted the each of the other brothers has experienced some serious problems. The defendant apparently has continued in this pattern. He is unemployed; his marriage has failed; and he has been involved with tt courts. If some sense of responsibility and maturity is not acquire: soon by the defendant, it is only a matter of time before he is facir confinement at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. The defendant must learn to accept responsibility for his actions. Ke must learn that he is no longer a juvenile. Normally this writer would have recommended a period of confinement with probation. However, the defendant’s injuries would appear to make' confinement insignificant. However, it is felt that the defendant should be made to respond to each of his obligations as closely as possible. In addition, he should be observed for the possible need for treatment of alcoholism. 106 why, based on my information and what the courts have already given him, to make his own decision. In 1981, Randazzo wrote PSIs very much like those he wrote in 1979: long, rarely-paragraphed character studies that depend on accurate observations, clear logic and well- honed syntax for rhetorical effect (see Fig. 4, Phillip B.). In another PSI from 1981, Randazzo details the extensive drug history of Betty M.: "The defendant admits substance use history of marijuana, diet pills, valium, mescaline, alcohol, heroin, T's and Blues. Her alcoholic problems were serious when she was a teenager." But he concludes the "Evaluation and Plan" with uncommon kindness and sympathy (see Fig. 5). In his interview, Randazzo said that his greatest reward in probation was when you see someone straighten up and feel pretty sure they are not going to get in trouble again. For example, when I was in the drug unit, I had a guy that went through Odyssey House for three years, went to U. of M., Flint for three years, and last I heard he was working in Washington for the Energy Department. Randazzo's PSIs of 1979 and 1981 are filled with detail, generalization, occasional redundancy--especially in later sections where some information is repeated, though often in more detailed form— critical judgments and sympathetic evaluations. He is an unabashed moralist and humanist who still believes in depicting an individual in 107 Figure 4. Phillip B. EVALUATION & PLAN: — ....‘ " I Appearing before the Court in a 22-year-old native, of Dearborn, Michigan and resident of the Downriver area. He is to be sentenced, having pled guilty to two drug related offenses. The defendant has no prior Youth Bureau or Juvenile Court record. He has no prior arrests without convictions. His previous arrests with convictions were: There are no pending cases. The defendant's present cases involve his participation in the sale of drugs to an undercover officer. There is no restitution involved. The defendant was raised in an unstable environment. His parents separated when he was seven years old. The mother remarried when he was 14, but there apparently was little supervision. Both brothers have been known to the Courts, the eldest presently being in SPSM. The defendant left Park High School in 197^ while in the 1 0th grade for nor.-attcndar:e. }'.= returnee ii January, 1 9 7 6, but left again in March, 1976. The defendant attended the Education Program in Park, but still is on the 10th grade level. Non-attendance was the primary problem. He never has been in military service. On February 1977 the defoliant married Sharon They have two children, ages two and four years old. On 1981 the defendant and his wife were separated. The children primarily are with his wife. They are supported by ADC. The defend ant has been employed since April, 197b at the Docks. However, he works only when he is called. Durioe 1930 the defendant earned $5,000 for the year. Since February, 1979 the defendant and his family have resided at P.lver P.ouge. This is a house he is buying. The down payment was provided by the defendant's father. The defendant has not paid the taxes on it since 1979- He also has numerous other bills. As a result, the father is assuming responsibility for the house. The defendant indicates a substance abuse history involving madhuana. alcohol, valium, LSD, PCP, and cocaine. He admits using all of them during 1 9 0I. Marihuana use began in 1973. In recent years he has used it twice a week although it has been more often in the past. Tne last time was in June, 1 9 6 1. Cocaine was first used in 1 9 7 6. During March, 1951 it was used often. In regard to alcohol, the defendant has been drinking since 1975, usually drinking Vodka. He reluctantly admits a problem. The defendant never has been in a treatment program. While he admits the possibility of a substance abuse problem, he was reluctant to consider in-patient treatment. A urinalysis test, dated 9-1-81, was positive for valiums. The defend ant indicates that he took it for nerves. While the defendant des cribes his health as good, it is noted that he has hemophilia. The defendant's within cases represent his third and fourth drug related convictions since 1976. However, he denies a serious drug abuse problem. He blames a need to support his family, pay bills, and support himself as the reasons for his problems. Yet, it is noted that his first case occurred prior to the birth of his children, prior to the purchase of the house, and prior to his marriage. In addition, while he may r.ot be enriching himself, his choser. means to support himself has been to engage in an activity highly detrimental to society. He is engaging in the promotion of an activity which has led to the destruction of many lives. It is noted that the defendant has had two opportunities on probation. Yet, he continues to become Involved with the Courts. Incarceration appears to be the next alternative. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, it is respectfully recommended that the defendant be given a period of three to seven years incarceration in the State Prison of Southern Michigan. It is recommended that the defendant obtain his GED and engage in vocational training while there. 108 Figure 5. Betty M. Evaluation - Cont.* d: The defendant also completed a nurse's aide course In 1975 at S.E.R. in New Mexico. She never was in military service. On February 17, 19&7 the defendant married They had three children, ages 11, 8 and 5 years old. He was in the Army and developed a drug problem. Therefore, on May 10, 1980 the defendant and her husband were separated. His where abouts is unknown. Currently the defendant is unemployed. She cites babysitting problems as preventing her employment as a nurse's aide. She is supported by ADC, receiving $223 every two weeks and $128 in food stamps, effective 7-10-81. Since July 10, 1981 the defendant and her children rent a terrace apartment at Detroit, paying $135 a month. The defendant admits a substance abuse history of marihuana, diet pills, valium, mescaline, alcohol, heroin, T's and Blues. Her alcoholic problems were serious when she was a teenager. The other problems began during 1972 or 1973. She correlates this with her husband's return from Vietnam, however use has been daily. She states that from 197^ to November, 1979 she was relatively drug free. Then they moved to Detroit and she returned to heroin use. She denies a history of addiction but admits period of use for five or six da in a row. She cut down the UBe oi heroin after her ai.-^c for the within case, the last time being three weeks ago. She never has been in a substance abuse program. She does not feel that she has a drug problem at present. However, she does feel a need for counselling. A urinalysis test, dated 8-3-81, was negative for drug content. The defendant adds that she has no friends who are not involved with drugs. The defendant appears to lack any support system in the community. Other than her chi. ldren, she has no family upon which to lean. Her acquaintances apparently are from the drug culture. In addition, when depressed and lonely the defendant appears to turn to drugs for support and solace. A return to her family in New Mexico appears to be the long term solution. However, due to a lack of money on the part of both it cannot be accomplished at this time. Therefore, it is felt that the defendant needs a counselling program which will provide needed support in the interim. In addition, it appears that the defendant is not capable at this time of making restitution for court-appointed attorney. 109 the PSI ("We are still dealing with individuals"), and who has a very clear intent in writing the PSI: "I write it so that whoever picks it up will get to know the man." More than most probation officers, including other "old soldiers," he enjoys writing and has his own strategies for producing a coherent PSI: "I like to write, because I do it backwards. I do Section Three, the body, first. Then when I'm on other areas, I can refer back to it . . . I try to make it flow (by) rephrasing a paragraph by the defendant, putting in phrases ..." Randazzo: Post-training, 1983 To meet the perceived needs of judges-as-readers, Stevenson emphasized the use of paragraphs as distinct units of evaluation, i.e., defendant's strengths, weaknesses and prognosis for the future. Randazzo, in 1979 and 1981, had been writing long narratives containing page-long paragraphs, but his post-Stevenson PSIs appear considerably different (Fig. 6, Gary M.). The page is lightened by white space, since Randazzo now composes the "Evaluation and Plan" in seven short paragraphs. Although he does not use Stevenson's terms "strengths and weaknesses," his first two paragraphs 110 Figure 6. Gary M. E V A L U A T IO N AND P L A N ; Appearing before the Court on a Holmes Youthful Trainee Act petition is a 17 year old native of Lincoln Park, Michigan. He was raised there in an unstable environment. His parents were separated when the defendant was six years old. Currently the defendant’s father and step-mother are going through a divorce. The defendant also is having difficulty in school. He left it last year due to truancy problems. The father blames teachers and other students for these problems. However, the defendant has resolved to return to school, attending a required class in the spring to be re-admitted. The defendant has no criminal conviction record as an adult or a juvenile. He did have youth bureau contacts but there were no convictions. There also is no indication of any substance abuse history, either narcotic or alcohol. While the defendant’s background contains elements of instability, the father is interested in the defendant. He has had. minor involvements with law enforcement officials. However, he has avoided seriqus infractions. With strict supervision, it is felt that the defendant could successfully complete a period of probation. He requires guidance in his education and counselling with possible problems. With this he could reverse his current trend in his conduct. 113 deal with perceived "weaknesses," the second two with "strengths" and the final paragraphs with "prognosis." Gary M.'s evaluation also contains fewer details, although Randazzo does include material in later sections, as probation officers were told they could. Randazzo here appears to be observing the letter rather than the spirit of the law. The "Evaluation and Plan" is still organized chronologically, and the paragraphs are really page-breaks, rather than developed units. Randazzo's PSI on Ilene S., who was convicted of welfar fraud (Fig. 7) reflects an even stronger attempt to marshall facts around the "strengths/weaknesses" axis. He opens with a generalization: "The defendant's life reflects stability and many positive aspects," but continues with a brief narrative of her personal history. He presents an assessmer of Ilene and follows with a gentle judgment: "However, in seeking to achieve her goals, the defendant used poor judgment." An "old soldier" committed to fulfilling professional responsibilities, Randazzo tries to give state administrators what they want. But the results are relatively tepid, providing neither a solid picture of the defendant, nor a fleshed-out report. Interviews reveal that Randazzo and the other "old soldiers" feel hamstrung e t 112 Figure 7. Ilene S. EVALUATION AND PLAN: The defendant's- lif** reflects stability and ">any positive aspects. She was raiSSu in a stable environment, in i970 tne de- tendant graduated from high school. A first marriage in 1970 ended in divorce four years later. Then in 1976 the defendant remarried. However, she and her husband did not live together until November, 1982. The marriage originally was meant to provide their child with the father's name. The children apparently are well. In addition to ADC, the defendant also holds part-time em ployment as she seeks to purchase a house. The defendant has no prior arrest record. The defendant's life contains order and appears to reflect a sense of responsibility. However, in seeking to achieve her goals, the defendant used poor judgment. Whether out of lack of knowledge or fear, as she indicates, the defendant did fraudu lently receive funds. She expressed remorse and a willingness to make restitution to the best of her ability. It would appear that she can successfully complete a period of probation. In regards to restitution, this writer has been informed by the State Attorney General's Office that, as long as the defendant receives assistance, a certain portion will be deducted as restitution. Only if she obtains full-time employment and no longer receives assistance will restitution be collected by the Court's Cashier Department. 113 by state and audience-sponsored modifications, which conflict with their deeply-held convictions about the nature of the PSI, its "inherent" form, and the needs of the judge. Each "old soldier" displays a deep sense of cognitive dissonance (Festinger); at the same time, each is trying to develop strategies for coping with change. Responses to Reader-Sponsored Changes MR: When we write we are confined to a format. In my interviewing I do not follow this form page by page. I try and do it chronologically. BH: (Asks about preference for form) MR: Basic to my evaluation, I do what I have always done. BH: . . . Why do you choose that? MR: It is very illogical to put the conclusion first. You have to have something leading to that conclusion. BH: (Offers an observation made to her by another PO*: that the PO might as well start the evaluation with the judgment he has already arrived at through his "trained intuition.") MR: That would be great, if the only person who was going to read this thing was the PO. But you are making a product for someone else, the judge . . . this one particular judge only reads the last paragraph. And he will read back [through the PSI] only if the last paragraph is "off the wall." * PO stands for probation officers. The term is used only in transcripts of interviews. 114 Responses to State-Sponsored Changes Randazzo feels that state-sponsored changes, such as avoiding hypotheses and (unsupported) generalizations, diminish his powers as a writer, but he tries to adapt and understand why changes were made. BH: In the old PSI [procedure statement], they would say things like, "create a hypothesis as to why this person has had these problems. Today you just ask for "strengths and weaknesses." What do you think of that? MR: I don't like it. I had a perfect example this morning, although I can see the reasoning. You can have people draw conclusions that are totally "off the wall." They are human . . . So I can see it even if I don't like it . . . A good example [of problems created when the PO cannot state his deduction about a client] is an interview I did today. This person, an elderly woman in her late 50s, a drug case, a particular ethnic background; her two sons were involved. I was thinking that I would meet this little old lady who does not know what is going on or why. She comes in, I talk to her; before I came here spent ten years in a drug unit so I know something about the drug culture. She came in, and I began the interview. She is not naive. I probe to find out the extent of the selling and to whom. She knew the answers perfectly, the right answers not to incriminate her or her kids. This is not a common sense thing; this is knowing the law and not having a prior record. All of this I can't use in the PSI because it's all based on my knowledge and drawing conclusions based on what she's told me. BH: You mean, you can't say,"due to my many years in the drug field ..." MR: I can't say anything, but I feel she is the main seller, not the kids. (Yet) she is going to get probation. 115 ***** BH: Oh, so if someone is not going to give you information, you don't have the information to put it? MR: Right. BH: So you just have to "eat" that one? MR: Right. She will just continue her drug selling till they bust her again. Randazzo faces other problems when he wants to describe the life of the defendant sympathetically. BH: When you look at the current PSI, what is your general feeling? When they took things out, how do you deal with that? MR: Some things they took out weren't all that vital. If something was vital, you can work it in. Take religion. Most times it was not vital, but if it was a big part of his life, you can fit that in . . . the thing that bothers me is not being able to draw conclusions. Particularly in describing the whole scene . . . it's called a "judgment," and you can't comment if the neighborhood is a high crime area, even if it is. BH: How does this hamstring you? MR: If you are doing a PSI on a boy whose home is obviously a perfect example of poverty [but] he has gone to high school, gotten good grades, and is trying to bring himself out of his environment— you can't even tell what his environment was. Later in the interview, Randazzo returned to the issue of inserting trained judgment in the PSI when asked what he would do if he were revising the PSI. MR: Go back basically to the old system. 116 BH: [You mean] going back to the hypothesis-making, since you are a trained PO? MR: To make sure that it was clearly someone's opinion, the investigator's description, PO assessment, so if the judge wanted to ignore that section, he could— he would know it was someone's opinion. Responses to Writer-Sponsored Changes Most of the "old-timers" shared Randazzo's view about the work-shortening effects of the new PSI. MR: Shorten paperwork? It didn't help; you still have to get the same information. The writing is the last step and you maybe save ten minutes. You still have to do the same investigation. Despite the changes he has had to make, Randazzo remains committed to his social-work inspired definition of his job. When asked him about his relationship and his responsibility to the defendant and the community, he replied: "I think they are closely related. If I help my client, I'm helping the community. He won't steal anything and will become a contributing member of the tax roles." Randazzo is also committed to maintaining his "ethos" as a professional. BH: Do you view yourself as a writer? MR: I guess I have to say "yes." Even though I am not trying to persuade the judge, that is my objective--trying to give him the objective facts . . . unless the judge is tied in by a "bargain" [plea bargain]. And if you've done a good job, 95% of the time you can get your recommendation. 117 BH: Do you get "strokes” from that? MR: Only when I feel justice has been done. William Albright Albright is a thoughtful, long-time member of the probation department who views himself as an "assistant to the judge," someone who is "of service to the judge." Like other "old soldiers," Albright considers his writing the primary vehicle for assisting the judge in his decision making role. But unlike other "old soldiers," who are sometimes cautious about using the term "persuasion" to describe their intentions in the PSI, he responded directly and affirmatively to the interview question: "Do you think the PSI is a persuasive document?" WA: Yes, I do. Yes, though not so much on a routine kind of case because I know the outcome of it before the man leaves the office, but when I have one that is a little complicated, I want to make sure my PSI is going to be persuasive. I want to say that when I say probation is not recommended, the court will know why. I don't like to leave a lot of loopholes. Like other "old soldiers," Albright understands the probation officer's potential power and his ethical responsibility not to abuse that power when he composes a PSI. Unlike Randazzo, Albright feels uncomfortable with personal judgment, fearing an untempered PSI may prejudice the judge: 118 WA: . . . At the same time, I do avoid giving my own personal feelings about the man. "[He] came in here and he looked like a jerk; he didn't open his mouth; I had to pull out every word." Sometimes I'd like to say that but I will just reword it a different way and say that there was "some difficulty during the interview." Maybe in that area I might be remiss because I don't really get down to describing the individual himself. BH: Are you supposed to describe the individual? WA: No. In fact, I never did that when we could do that; I avoided doing that. I thought I was prejudicing the court. I always had it in my mind, "prejudicing the court," even before we started . . . so I just sort of left it ambiguous. We'd just leave it out altogether. I just happen to be thinking about a case I did recently where I really wanted to say a lot about this man, but being limited by what the pre* called for, I had to do my persuading in the context of what was there. I think I did that. I think I was able to show the court that this man was not a probation candidate, that he should have gone to jail, but the court had already agreed to put him on probation. BH: They had? You mean in a pre-sentence bargain? WA: I said, "he is not a probation candidate, in my estimation." But if he has to be a probation candidate I may as well make the conditions [of probation] something I can live with and say, "you haven't gotten away with it, and if you don't do what the court asks you to do, then I can take you back and say: you gave him the chance and said he was going to be on probation, but he didn't make it." It's not that I want the guy to fall right away . . . Probation officers refer to the PSI as a pre. This term will be used only in direct transcripts of interviews. 119 this man particularly because of his drinking and the fact that he doesn't want to recognize the problem; he has to. I'm going to make him recognize his problem whether he wants to or not. So throughout my pre, through the mother's conversation, the police department, through people I could quote and people I couldn't— other probation officers--I just went over this drinking, drinking, over and over again. Albright clearly uses strategies like repetition to persuade the judge about the character of the defendant, but one of the audience-sponsored changes in the PSI was reduction of redundancy. I questioned him about his use of this strategy for persuasion: BH: So you used repetition of events? WA: No, the same event [repetition of the same event]; but other events would occur, but maybe different people would be telling the story . . . The mother, for instance, told of the blackouts, when the defendant denied a blackout. He said if this was a blackout it was the first he ever had. Then you go to the police file and find DUILs [Driving Under the Influence of Liquor] and things like that. I pretty much convinced the court that this guy had a very serious problem. ***** BH: So you have this intuition when you're looking at someone, and you have to use facts to describe the intuition you have. You just can't say, "I think this guy is going to be a repeater."? WA: No, I don't do that. I would use the facts. But I think you're right about the intuition. You just go and say, I want to bring this point out-- "Mother, what do you think about this? Is it a real problem, has it been a problem?" I guess we do that even unconsciously, because we know what we should be getting at and kind of hope we're 120 not putting words in other people1s mouths. But I think maybe when we direct questions to them, we're going into special areas they feel they have to respond to. They think of some incident that happened twenty years ago . . . Albright incorporates shifting perspectives to help define the defendant for the judge, a strategy previously recommended by the state but utilized only by high- and medium-skill writers. Writing Samples Albright's PSIs are significantly shorter than Randazzo's, as a sample from a 1981 case of Malicious Destruction of Property indicates (Fig. 8). An examination of his PSIs from 1983 reveal that Albright utilizes Stevenson's training even less than Randazzo (Fig. 9 presents a sample 1983 PSI on a comparable offense) for reasons that resemble Randazzo's. First, Albright perceives the "inherent" order of the PSI as being violated by the "strengths/weaknesses" format; second, he considers the form of analysis implicit in the "strengths/weaknesses" format as something that may prejudice the case. In his interview, Albright talked cogently about the logical and philosophical differences between the old and new forms: BH: . . . What are you thinking of when you're putting together a pre that is important to you. And you are saying, "I really do want to treat this specially." 121 Figure 8. Randazzo Case of Malicious Destruction of Property. EVALUATION AND PLAN; The Court is sentencing a 39 year old female defendant on her first conviction. Restitution is not being claimed by the com plainant a9 his primary concern is that the defendant not harrass him or his family. The defendant indicates she is involved in this case because of her three year romance with the complainant which has now ended, and which she is unwilling or inable to accept. She is presently undergoing psychiatric counselling and a report is attached for The Court's information. The psychiatric reports in dicated that at the time of this offense she had been drinking a great deal and apparently continues to abuse alcohol. The defendant has a 12th grade education; she also earned a degree at Virginia Farrell for hair styling. She was employed at Ford Motor Company, but is currently laid off. She is divorced from her husband and has one child. She claims she gets no child support and has no income other than the charity of her family. The defendant's parents have never been very supportive. Her closest friend appears to be her brother, Claude. Her father committed suicide in June, 1981 and her brother, Roger killed himself in July, 1978. The defendant also claims that she wants to commit suicide. 122 Figure 9. Albright Case of Malicious Destruction of Property. E V A L U A T IO N A N D P L A N ; The Court is sentencing a 29 year old female defendant, who has pled guilty to False Pretenses under ?100.00. The offense involved usin§ a credit card of another person and charging a room at a motel . The defendant has no juvenile court record and has two previous misdemeanor convictions. She was on probation to Circuit Court and that probation was terminated February, 1983 without improvement. The subject is single and has two children. She is a high school graduate and has attended college. The defendant has not worked for approximately 10 years stating that she has been supported by her second child’s father for the last 8 years and became an ADC recipient in January, 1983. Her health has been poor having been recently released from the hospital for blood problems and lung congestion. The defendant states she is involved in this case because of an argument with her sister resulting in her not having any place to live. She said she knows she used poor judgement and regrets her actions. The defendant's probation record shows a history of drug usage, but defendant denies any serious drug involvement, and states, "she snorts occasionally, but is not addicted". She was referred to the Boniface Community Substance Abuse clinic for an evaluation and treatment. She states she is going to participate. The defendant indicates a willingness to cooperate and a willingness to participate in treatment. It appears that she is an eligible candidate for probation. 123 WA: Well, primarily what I’m thinking about is getting the facts together because I have to stay with the facts and what information I actually have or I can actually quote and put in a logical order. When the court's reading it, and the way I perceive it is that we're coming from the beginning of his history down to the bottom of where we're at right now. BH: You see it chronologically? WA: I do, I see it chronologically. I know everybody doesn't here. They have their own system. What is the other one they use? Rick Ratliff's really good at it. [Ratliff is another probation officer.] BH: Well, Stevenson wants you to start with strengths and weaknesses. WA: Strengths and weaknesses. Ratliff does a really good job on that. I find that awkward for me. I've thought about it and I've used it when they first introduced it. I found it awkward. I like to go through like a life history, not a life history, but a chronological history of saying where this man is coming from, where he came from, where he's been, and what he's doing now. That kind of thing. BH: What's your intuitive [sense of the] difference between these two things. I mean, they really are two different ways of presenting somebody. WA: I think the other one is vague. That's my idea. Say the man has got an education or he's unemployed or these things aren't specific enough for me. I want to say that if he's unemployed, he's been unemployed for ten years or he's been working at such and such a place. I just want to be more specific about it. For example, a divorce is not necessarily negative, not for me. It doesn't have to be negative. It could have been a real positive thing in this person's life. For me it's kind of kind of difficult to see what I would see as being a positive or negative factor . . . I don't like this way too much [but], I'll do it if you want me to do it, but 124 I’m not really comfortable doing it. So I haven't changed. I’m comfortable doing it the way I’ve been doing it. If they make me change I will change. ***** BH: How do you perceive one [form] as different from the other? I mean the "strengths and weakness" form which is the Stevenson model, and the model you are comfortable with and want to continue using. You obviously think that's better. WA: For me, but not for the office, because I know that others use that format and feel very comfortable, but the only thing is to, as I said before, I don't feel it has enough information to put across the point that I want to put across to the judge. I feel I’m not convincing enough in this positive and negative thing. Although Albright does not use the format suggested by Stevenson, he uses other writing suggestions that were part of the Stevenson training program. Like most of the "old soldiers," he is interested in improving his writing and wishes the state would do more to provide training: "Most of our training is on useless stuff." Aside from manager, Marilyn Brownell, Albright remarked that Dwight Stevenson' was the first one that had talked about writing as a skill. Larry Arnow Like Albright, Larry Arnow does not have a formal degree from a university; nevertheless, he is a high-skill writer, a long-time member of the corrections department, and an astute observer of human nature. As his PSIs prior 125 to 1983 indicate, he allows the situation to dictate the form he will follow. If the facts of the case and the attitude of the defendant are overwhelmingly negative, Arnow does not render a judgment or offer a prognosis, but lets the judge draw his own conclusions (Fig. 10). Like other ’ ’ old soldiers," he is deeply ethical, concerned about helping to re-establish the remorseful defendant in the community and convicting the non-remorseful recidivist. He is consistently interested in the kind of support the defendant may have from family members. If he is supported by family, Arnow infers that the prognosis for probation is good (Fig. 11). Post-Training--1983, Performance and Attitude As Arnow's "Evaluation and Plan" for Vincent H. indicates (Fig. 12), Arnow makes no attempt to follow the "strengths/weaknesses" format. Vincent H. is a "bad apple" with a long record. The summary of his record and attitude appear in a long first paragraph (18 lines), followed by a short paragraph of prognosis. As in all cases written by Arnow, prognosis is a common-sense assessment of the defendant's ability to adapt to society: The defendant is in need of training as he has no skills and his education was terminated while in the tenth grade at Ecorse High School. He was in special education classes at the time. It is felt that unless the defendant is incarcerated in a place where he can secure some type of training, prognosis for the future 126 Figure 10. EVALUATION AND PLAN; Before the Court is a 22 year old, single male who has only re sided in the Michigan area since February of 1 9 8 1 . He had been here on a previous occasion in 1 9 7 8 , at that time became Involved with the Michigan State Police on a drug charge, and was not arrested until he returned here in March of 1 9 8 I. He is currently on proba tion on that charge to the 33rd District Court. He also has another case pending in the 33rd District Court out of the Michigan State Police Post for Disorderly Conduct. The defendant resided here with his uncle and all attempts to make contact with the uncle failed. This officer did go to the home and the family would not talk to me. The defendant states that he was an inmate of the Juvenile Court in Indiana for a number of years before coming to Michigan. In response to his probation in the 33rd District Court he last reported on August 19, and at that time was set up to get into group therapy. According to Probation Officer, Ms. Karen Sage, he never went to the group therapy sessions. Defendant states that he finished the 10th grade in school in Indiana and left in 1975. He states that he uses marijuana daily and also drinks beer daily. He claims that he gets drunk every Friday night. 127 Figure 11. The defendant has no criminal history either as a juvenile or an adult. He has a valid Michigan operator's license and has two convictions, one for Speeding and one for Careless Driving. Both of these tickets were in 1979. The defendant has an excellent work record and is currently employed as an assistant mechanic at an excavating company work ing on their machinery. The defendant is genuinely remorseful for having become in volved in this offense though he himself was not directly in volved only in that he was drag racing with the other car. There was no damage to him or to his automobile. The defendant's family are very concerned as to what is going to happen to their son. The family is very closeknit and they all stand behind the defendant. The mother states .that he resides in the family home, has never caused the family .any prob lems and there is no evidence of excessive drinking or use of any narcotics. 128 is poor and he will become further involved with the criminal justice system. When the situation warrants it, he inserts a paragraph about the defendant's "strengths" (Fig. 13): The defendant is a high school graduate, who also has an Associate's degree in child care from Wayne County Community College. She is also a trained substance abuse counselor; her last job was as a nurse's aide in 1981 when she left because she had no transportation. Arnow is a good writer who zeroes in on the significant facts and arranges them according to rhetorical exigencies. But like Albright, and to some extent Randazzo, he continues to use the narrative form and eschew the "strengths/weaknesses format." The competence and control he exhibits in his PSIs belies his close-to-the-surface rage over shifting attitudes in corrections, which he finds represented in Stevenson's reconceptualization of the PSI. Arnow is very outspoken about his beliefs as demonstrated here. Our conversation began with small talk about corrections procedures, after which I introduced the subject of the PSI. Arnow pretended not to know what I was talking about. LA: What pre? BH: What do you mean, "what pre?" LA: Are you talking about, excuse the expression, shit we are putting in the reports? BH: Yes. 129 Figure 12. Vincent H. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Before the Court is a 20 year old single male who appears before Your Honor having plead guilty to 3 separate charges of Attempt Breaking & Entering and 1 of Burning Personal Property. Three of these offenses were committed while he was out on bond awaiting trial on a previous case. There are other charges pending which will be dropped after defendant is sentenced in this matter. It should be noted that defendant in admitting his guilt to these cases also cleaned up approximately 50 other B&E's in the Down river area of Lincoln Park, Ecorre, Wyandotte and Woodhaven. Although the defendant admits to the offenses to which he has plead guilty before Your Honor, in each one he seems to be stating that he only followed the lead of someone else and never actually participated and performed the crimes on his own. He is viewed by many as being a follower rather than a leader. In regards to the three charges of B&E, the defendant was normally with the same two people and always got his share of what was taken. For the most part he sold what he got; he got very little for it. The defendant is in need of training as he has no skills and his education was terminated while in the 10th grade at Ecorse High School. He was in special classes at the time. It is felt that unless the defendant is incarcerated in a place where he can secure some type of training, prognosis for the future is poor and he will become further involved with the criminal justice system. 130 Figure 13. Nurse's Aide. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Before The Court is a 32 year old married woman, who is currently separated f i/bin her husband. She is the mot tier of three children who reside with her and are supported by ADC benefits. Her husband does not support the children. The defendant lias been a user of narcotics since she was 19 years old and recently went into a del ox prog ram at Detroit Memorial ilosiptal for her problems. She also is an alcoholic and detoxed from that at the same time. She is currently attending AA meetings and is in group therapy at Detroit Memorial Hospital. The defendant is a high school graduate, who also has an Associates Degree in Child Care from Wayne County Community College. She is also a trained Substance Abuse Counselor; her last job was as a nurses aide in 1981 when she left because she had no transportation. Defendant states her health is poor. She is currently undergoing heart monitoring for a problem she is having for chest pains. She has had two concussions and had her wrist broken. She also has problems with her kidneys and arthritis. Defendant states she does have mental and emotional problems, and is currently seeking help with these problems by undergoing therapy. For her medical problems, she uses nitro pills when she gets chest pains. She states there is possibly hospitalization in the near future. It is recommended that she be placed on probation and to- continue her therapy for her drug and alcoholic problems at the Detroit Memorial Hospital. 131 LA: Well, to me they are nothing but a pile of shit. And I am not the only one who has said it; I've had judges tell it to me. Because we put absolutely nothing in it. The State of Michigan and the Corrections Commission is afraid of their own G.D. shadows, afraid of what we say and that they are going to get a lawsuit on their hands. I've been writing pres since 1961; I've never been sued before. I put stuff into the report that today you can't, because they claim you can't put it in there because you can't use your own free mind. That’s what it is. BH: You mean you can't use your own trained intuition? LA: That's right. My intuition means nothing. If I can't tell them who said it, or what was done and by whom it was done, then I can't put it in there. I can't back it up. BH: What does this turn the document into? LA: It turns it into a fantasy. It really turns it into a fantasy because you're not telling anything about the person except what is there. What is there in the form. What's in the form. They have set up a format; you follow the format. BH: Strengths and weaknesses. LA: You don't . . . BH: Do you use . . . ? LA: Oh, yes, definitely. BH: You say, "here's his strengths, here's his weaknesses, here’s an example?" LA: What are strengths and what are weaknesses? That’s what I never did find out. If a guy has never been in trouble before, that is a strength. If a guy doesn't use drugs; that is a strength. If a guy uses alcohol, that is a weakness. But does he use it to excess, or does he just have a drink occasionally? Is there a reason why he got 132 in trouble? Is that a strength or weakness; who knows ? BH: So what do you do? If it's real ambiguous about what's a strength or a weakness. What do you do with that? LA: I just fill in what I think. I don't put in very much, very little on my evaluation or plan. Very little goes into my evaluation. BH: Why? Because they say nothing? LA: Because there is nothing to put in unless I can back it up. BH: You can back it up. LA: No, I can back it up to certain things. Only certain things can be backed up. Not everything. In the old days, when a man was arrested for beating up his old lady or something like that, you put it in there even though he wasn't charged. It was a weakness. Today, unless he is charged, convicted, you can't even put it in there. BH: Well, I was just hearing . . . LA: The guy was a wife beater. Beat up two women prior to it. You can't put that truthfully in a report because he was never charged with it. * * * * * BH: OK, so if he was not charged . . . LA: He was arrested without conviction. You can't put that in. In the old days, when a man was locked up you put in "arrest without conviction." Fine. You can explain what happened to each one. You can give the judge a person's background. What type of person he is. Got arrested twenty times, only convicted twice. There is a pattern. 133 BH: Do you think the document of the past was a persuasive document? When you were writing it, were you intending to persuade the judge when you wrote it? LA: Yes. One way or another. No, I don't think I was trying to persuade him. I wasn't being persuasive. I was being truthful. There is a difference. I would say we were being truthful. Many a time I've written the case in the old days that, years ago, that people would look at you and say, "the guy's gotta go to jail," and you'd say, "No." Just because it's [the case] what it is, he don't go to jail. One comes to mind, a murder case, a homicide, manslaughter, where a man killed his wife . . . after reading witnesses . . . there was no way I could recommend time for this man. And they never gave him time. He did his probation, never got in trouble . . . never got in trouble again and that was the end of it. But today, you can't say that. There is nothing in there to show it. Unless you're going to get a report of a psychologist and a psychiatrist and a doctor, a this and a that. What makes a psychiatrist and a psychologist any smarter than you or I? He's talking to the man like you and I are. If you have medical tests you give them. If a man's sick, he's sick. I can't see the rest of it . . . We don't use our trained mind. We don't use it anymore. We're like a machine. We've become a robot. I pick up a form. I sit down. I dictate a four- page report, depending on who I talk to, and I start on top, and on the front sheet I write my evaluation and then the defendant's strengths and weaknesses and the prognosis for the future. Well, if he's never been in trouble and it wasn't that he killed somebody, and he is in school and working, the prognosis is good, right? But then he goofs later on and makes a mistake. Big deal. I didn't notice that I was wrong. So then you turn around and take a Michael J., who's got a good job every day and worked all his life, 18 years at Chrysler, been to Jackson in and out and still persists in stealing cars. 134 ** *** BH: Is there any reason to write a longer pre? It's his fifth offense and it's clear by this time it's prisonable, he's an habitual criminal, that he's going to continue to steal cars or whatever. LA: Is there a reason to write a longer pre? Yes. Because then you can get deeper into what someone has told you. You can't put in what a policeman thinks or feels. Because he only thinks or feels it. He has no proof. There is no thinking like we had in the old pre, community attitude, which is the police department and things like that. It is not there anymore. Later in the interview I asked Arnow whether writing was a "big part of your job." LA: Writing? 90% at one time. I've been around a lot longer than most of these people. We're talking twenty-odd years, 25 years. I've gone through four bosses; I've gone through 22 chief judges, and I don't know how many regular judges. So there's a difference. You have people today, judges today, from the old times, who would look at reports like this and put us in jail. I'll be honest with you. They would put you in contempt of court for writing the kind of garbage we write today. BH: Is this "garbage" because it's so little? LA: Because it doesn't say anything. BH: When you say "it doesn't say anything," do you mean it doesn't draw conclusions from facts or what? LA: Well, unless the judge wants to draw a conclusion from the facts. If he can draw it from what I wrote, great. BH: What would you add? Let’s just say if you were rewriting it. 135 LA: I don't know. I've been writing this form for so long I really don't know what I would like to write anymore. I'd like to find some of the old stuff from 29 years ago, get some of the old buddies. I don't want to do what we used to call a "Phil F." write a book eighty-some pages long . In the 14-page interview, Arnow ranged across many social issues that impinge on the "doing of justice" in the United States, including an insidious double standard that encourages young men and women to emulate athletes and movie stars who openly "snort coke all day long" but then punishes them for having drugs in their possession: . . and the poor kid gets caught with some coke, and he goes to jail when he gets caught." I brought up the question of "individuation" in the PSI, questioning whether Arnow felt the current PSI allowed for or encouraged description of these many young drug offenders. LA: Look at it. Do you see any place to individualize the the person? I asked him to consider the state's attitude toward the writers of the PSI: LA: Robots. Robots I think refers to it. We can be replaced by a robot. This report could be written by a machine. We can put in on a computer and fill in the spaces. And off the record, we've proved it. Sure we proved it here. We did it once on the . . . computer. 136 Relationship with Judges More than any of the other "old soldiers," Arnow is bitter about the effects of state takeover. One of his most salient perceptions concerned the effect that adding new bureaucratic levels has had on the probation officer's relationship with the judge. BH: What do you think the relationship is between the judge and the probation officer? LA: Now? BH: Yes. LA: There is none. There is none, period. BH: What was it before? LA: Very close. He relied on his probation officer. He talked to his probation officer. He didn't go through 22 supervisors and management to get to his probation officer. He went to the probation officer. BH: To find out about the defendant? LA: It used to be nothing to pick up a phone and a judge calls you and talks to you without going through channels. See in the state system, you go through channels. You go to the toilet, you go through a channel. BH: Well, can they all you today? Could Judge Carlucci call you? LA: Sure, he could, but he won't. He's going to call the supervisor. The phone number on each report is the supervisor's, not the probation officer. 137 Phillip Fenton Fenton is a long-time member of the Corrections Bureau and a medium-skill writer. His PSIs are notable for two facts: they no longer contain lengthy descriptions of the events of the case; they contain much of same language they did six years ago. Fenton continues to use the same statements in PSIs that he did in 1979, e.g., "The defendant comes from a low socio-economic background. He has a need for guidance and direction in his life." The narrative pattern of the PSI appears highly routinized, as does the language, displaying no evidence of change despite Stevenson's training, and despite Fenton's support of the idea of writing instruction: "I would like writing instruction . . . would like more of it." The Young Professionals Writing Samples (1979-83) and Interviews Unlike the "old soldiers," members of the group classified as "young professionals" perform less consistently on the redesigned PSI. Of the six surveyed, two follow the new guidelines, two adapt some of Stevenson's ideas, and the remaining two make no attempt to follow the guidelines. The attitudes of the "old soldiers" towards the new PSI were largely antagonistic. Men like 138 Arnow are bitter and angry about the many changes confronting probation officers; others, like Randazzo and Albright, appear resigned to changes, but determined to follow their own deeply-felt impulses when writing the PSI. The majority of "young professionals" follow the guidelines and often denigrate their own effectiveness as probation officers, questioning both their ability to write and their ability to "make a difference" in the lives of their "clients." Their attitude contrasts with clear evidence, which shows most of the group to be medium or high-skill writers who still care about the welfare of their probationers and the community to which they will be returned. In fact, in this group there appears to be a relationship between level of ability and level of cynicism; a high level of writing aptitude correlates with a high level of cynicism. Jack Pentwater represents the disaffected "young professional" whose acts and attitudes are sometimes contradictory. Jack Pentwater Pentwater is classified as a "young professional" by virtue of his age, education, length of service and professional ethos. Now in his thirties, he majored in Criminal Justice as an undergraduate and has served for a decade in the Corrections Bureau. Although his degree is 139 in Criminal Justice, he disparages the "sociological overtones" of his education: JP: . . . it took me years to get over the education. It was absolutely useless. There was no basis in reality. What they taught us in school had no basis in reality. What they taught us in school had no basis with what I was to expect on the streets. In this job, what I learned in Criminal Justice school at [neune omitted] had no relationship to what I'm doing today. They were basically trying to describe the socio-economic conditions as an excuse for the type of behavior we see today in an attempt not to draw value judgments in the way an individual lives. I'm not saying I won't have strong value judgments--I probably do at some point--but to provide conditional excuses for the type of behavior these people are engaged in is inexcusable. More than any other "young professional," Pentwater indulges in value judgments, as his 1979 summary of the James D. case indicates (Fig. 14). He charts the defendant's history in the corrections system and concludes with a well-written account of a visit with the defendant's siblings. Pentwater's writing is exceptional, in part because of his relatively extensive lexicon. He uses more vivid verbs than others do, e.g., to "prod" the defendant. His syntactic skills also add to the total effect; Pentwater uses parallel structure for emphasis and prepositional phrases for adverbial introductions to sentences. More important than these factors is Pentwater's rhetorical 140 Figure 14. James D. The writer assumed supervision of this ease on 79 after the previous Probation Officer had retired. Two notices were mailed and a house call was made instructing the defendant to report. The defendant had not reported since January 1979 and had paid only $10.00. Therefore a warrant was requested on May 1979. Again after the Violation hearing it required 2 house calls, a telephone call and a notice mailed to prod the defendant to report for the interview and this investigation. The defendant kept his appointment on 7 9. He currently resides with his sister, , at phone He hasn't worked since 1977 and is being supported on General Assistance. A urinalysis completed on 79 registered negative. The writer made a home visit on -79 and talked with the defendant and- two of his sisters. Both were puzzled by the statements of the writer that the defendant had done absolutely nothing for the past two years, was still not cooperating with the probation department and hadn't been curious enough to ask if there were any programs he could enroll in. In addition his younger sister who seemed genuinely concerned felt that the department and court may even be forcing her brother to commit further crimes. A seemingly naive position but what the writer saw was that the defendant made no attempt to dispell this notion. The writer believes the defendant has consciously contributed to their naivete'. During the contacts with the defendant the writer saw him express ignorance and dumbfoundness about his relationship with the court system. The defendant does know better. He told the Court he was employed but now admits he hasn't worked steadily for two years. Also this isn't the first time the defendant has violated his probation for the same type of uncooperativeness. He violated probation in 1975 and now four years later at the age of 25 he continues to do the same thing. Background Summary: On July 1979 the defendant stood mute before Your Honor on the charge of Violation of Probation Att. B.& E./BP . The defendant was originally placed on 5 years probation for the above charge by the Honorable Patricia Boyle. He was ordered to spend the first 9 0 days in Detroit House of Correction, the last 2 years of probation were to be non reporting, he was to obtain a G.E.D. and job training and he was assessed $2 0 0.0 0. From the onset this defendant never took the probation seriously. He was released from D.H.C. on May 1978. He was notified prior to his release to report to the probation officer and he failed to do so. A telephone call, notice mailed, and house call were required by the probation officer to prod the defendant to begin reporting. He reported on July 1978. In January, 1979* the prior probation officer noted in the file that the defendant has been very remiss in his reporting despite several warnings and had paid nothing towards his court assess ments. The probation officer reflecting on the situation speculated a Violation warrant would probably be needed. 141 skills, as his description of the interaction between himself, James B. and James B.'s sisters indicates. This exchange incorporates personal testimony to incriminate the defendant and depict him as a charlatan. While use of testimony from relatives and friends was encouraged in the 1979 procedure statement, only high-skill writers use this technique, which requires an ability to integrate sources. In addition, many medium- and low-skill writers are reluctant to take the time to gather this information. In Pentwater's hands, personal testimony adds color to the description and dimension to the character being described. In the case of Amos S. (Fig. 15), who was arrested for drunk driving and carrying a concealed weapon in a car, Pentwater offers additional perspectives on the defendant from Amos S.'s employer, Mr. Poteet and from his ex-wife. Mr. Poteet provided a very good recommendation for the defendant. He reports that the defendant is an excellent mechanic and always reports on time. To his knowledge, the defendant doesn't have a drinking problem, Mr. Poteet says that being a non-drinker himself, and an employer-businessman, he knows when someone drinks. He says he'd unfortunately have to hire someone else if the defendant goes to jail, but essentially, that's the defendant's problem. . . . according to the attached report, his second wife described him as being as unpredictable as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." 142 Figure 15. Amos s. Background Summary: The defendant woe born in Tennessee. His parents Oscar end wlllio Ball h«3 cignt cniuciren. His father passed av*ay at the age of seventy-six in 1973. Hia mother and four of his alhlinrrs live In Tcnneooce. His sister of Hemtremck: live in Michigan. The defendant left Tennessee at the age of seventeen to live with his brother in the state of Rhode island. He stayed for about a year a::! a half with his brother. They moved to Detroit, Three weeks later he returned to Tennessee. ! , • ; lived there for about three years during which time he m.irritJ, bod a ion ond •lunnorted them as a truck driver. Aft^r his 'If' died, n the result of an automobile accident, the defendant end his son moved to Detroit at the end of 1976. Since that time, the defendant >iaa worked at * variety of jobs. He is currently ora;loved aj c mechanic at Shell ?%ation at , Mr. provided a very good recommendation for the defendant. 3!c reports that the defendant Is an excellent mechanic and always reports to work on time. To hi a knowledge, the defendant doesn't have a drinking problem. Mr, Foteet aays that being « non-drinker himself, and an cmployer-businesnman, he knows when someone drinks. ! ' « * says he'd unfortunately have to hire someone else if the defendant C0 -3 to ,1ni.l, but essentially* that's the defendant's problem. The defendant is. for all purposes, illiterate, which essentially ij the reason he is unable to become a licensed mechanic by the ft site o ' . ' Michigan. He quit school at tha age of sixteen in Tennessee. The defendant married for the second tine on January 1979. He states because of his in-laws, they separated one month after in February, 1979. She haa filed for divorce. According to the attached report, his second wife described hia as being as unpredictable "Dr. J^kyil and Mr. Hyde". This is the defendant's third adult offense. To the writer'o knowledge, there is no .juvenile record The following is his adult record: On Juno 197*J, he v»3 placed on 3lx months probation for Larceny iJ/190 The case was unre.oarkaabla and was closed on February 1973- On Anril 1979, the defendant granted a delayed sentence status under 771.1 by the Hon. Horace W. Gilmore, Wayne County Circuit Court on the chary"’ of CCtf . The above Court vaa unaware jf the ehove probation case and comoined with ths present conviction in this Court, tho defendant's atatun hA8 been revoked. He la to be sentenced by Judge Gilmore on n t the day prior to sentencing in this matter. 143 In addition to these perspectives, Pentwater is not reluctant to pass judgment on the evidence: "Mr. A. is not telling the truth." He offers a balanced summation of the case, the tone of which resembles that of the "old soldiers." In this summary, he presents himself as a representative of the community, articulating mildly retributive attitudes toward this car thief who was caught violating the terms of his probation: The defendant is not probation material. He is 26 years old and is obviously not concerned about the responsibilities of being on probation. On the other hand, the defendant is not an absolute threat to everyone in this community. There are some underlying and festering problems with his ex-in-laws, but if they remain out of contact with each other, there should be no incidents. Therefore, he doesn't need to be incarcerated at Jackson. However, he needs to be taught a lesson about the results of being convicted and driving an automobile while intoxicated. The defendant has not experienced the feelings of being in jail. He then recommends that the defendant be given six months in DeHoCo (The Detroit House of Corrections). This is a relatively stiff sentence because the defendant will probably serve the full six months there.* ★ Because of prison overcrowding and other problems in the penal system, the time actually served only occasionally matches the sentences meted out. Time served in state prisons, like Jackson, is even shorter than time served in local prisons, like DeHoCo, because of differing regulations. 144 Figure 16. Keith B. EVALUATION The defendant is rather young to have accumulated such a record. All of defendant's past records indicate he associated with older men in the neighborhood. During the home visit, the writer questioned why the man across the street parked his car down the block and v;as going from house to house. The defendant said he was a "runner." A short while later, another man drove up and parked the defendant reported the man was also a "runner," and that he has 5 or 6 fancy cars and makes more money in one morning than he and the writer do in 1 week. The writer believes the defendant is Intelligent and because of this is overly frustrated h coping with the system successfully. The defendant perceives and has been mislead by his older peers to be lieve that the only way to success is through criminal activity. It is likely that the largest amount of money he ever held was the $1,000 he spent after the first bank robbery. The $6,600 of the second bank robbery, he never had the chance to spend. The defendant is in violation of his federal parole. He expects and only benefits from decisive actions by the court. The writer 13 not recommending the maximum for what is his second adult felony conviction, but is recommending enough time in one place for the defendant to complete his GED requirements and time for him to con template where he is going for the rest of his life. He is still young enough after this is over to start over. However, at this moment, the writer believes the defendant is not ready to settle down. 145 In the case of Keith B., Pentwater lets the defendant speak for himself. The defendant's statements will reveal both his knowledge of illegal activities in the neighborhood and his attitude toward these activities. Pentwater also implies that they may also predict the future actions of the defendant (Fig. 16). From evidence, he derives hypothesis: "The writer believes the defendant is intelligent and because of this is overly frustrated in coping with the system successfully." The defendant is in violation of his federal parole. He expects and only benefits from decisive actions by the court. The writer is not recommending the maximum for what is his second adult felony conviction, but is recommending enough time in one place for the defendant to complete his GED requirements and time for him to contemplate where he is going for the rest of his life. He is still young enough to start over. However, at this moment, the writer believes the defendant is not ready to settle down. Pentwater's PSIs from 1979 reveal a strong writer who amasses evidence from records, personal testimony and testimony from neighbors and friends and arranges that material logically--though not necessarily narratively. He makes many judgments but usually supports them with evidence. Although he commented negatively about his defendants during several interviews, he was one of the few probation officers in the study who ever referred to offenders as "intelligent." He appears to understand the actions of young offenders and tries to help them, an 146 impulse that is clearly reflected in his PSIs but generally buried in conversation under cynical comments about probation bureaucrats and "criminals." BH: But as for the job having inherent satisfactions? JP: I sometimes enjoy dealing with the criminals; I mean, if it wasn't for them, this would be a terrible job. They are the only ones who are semi-rational. There are a lot of people in this business who are totally irrational. PO staff, judges, supervisors, corrections, are all out in left field, and the criminals are the only ones who can talk to you about what is happening in reality. BH: So you meet some decent people? JP: Yes, I like some of my guys; not all of them. I don’t consider them my friends, but I like them; I think they're reasonable. BH: So you try to help them? JP: I try to offer some direction, some guidance. I don't try to mess with them; I show some respect. I reserve the right to chew them out when I think they are acting childish, and I will do that. But if it wasn't for them this job would be awfully bad. You'd be exposed to all these other people who have personal objectives in mind. People who run this, the probation officers, supervisors, all have personal objectives. I suppose I have, too; I suppose there are people in this department who don't like me because of my attitude. Everyone here calls the guys "probationers" and "clients;" I call them "criminals." I will call them "criminals" to their face. Pentwater feels alienated from judges as well as from his immediate supervisors: 147 JP: I basically don't care what the judges do; I don't make any assumption that they read the things. The PSI is a wasted document; as part of this job it has lost its usefulness in this court. It may work in some other court, but in this court the PSI is a useless, senseless document. Supervisors may read them; I don't even read them. I don't read my own . . . they get you upset that someone makes the recommendations they do based on the facts they have, so why get frustrated by the whole thing and why put any real effort into it. When asked if he considered the PSI persuasive in intent, Pentwater commented again on the judges--the audience for the PSI— and how their attitudes influence the status of the PSI: JP: There are too many other factors that impact on the decision-making to say the PSI has the sole impact. There are too many other outside influences, and each one tends to minimize the impact the PSI can have. BH: You mean like pleas and mandatory sentences? JP: Pleas, mandatory sentences, judges' personal opinions; that is the largest one. Some judges refuse to do certain things. Some judges like to put men on probation for rape; they think women deserve to be raped. Thank heavens he is retired now. There are just absolutely too many other influences to say this probation document has any credibility; there are some judges who read it but they are few and far between. For Pentwater, "strokes" in the job do not come from writing the PSI: "[The job] pays my bills and takes care of my wife and kids, that kind of stuff. Gives me flexibility to do what I want outside of work." 148 Responses to Changes in the PSI Unlike many of the "old soldiers," Pentwater makes an effort to use Stevenson's "strengths/weaknesses" format; however, his attempts result in shorter evaluations and plans with far fewer paragraphs than he previously wrote. This is an unusual development because poorer writers, if they borrowed anything from Stevenson's training, began to break the discourse into three or more paragraphs to correspond in principle, if not in practice, to Stevenson's strengths/weaknesses/prognosis format. More important, in Pentwater's evaluation, which had formerly seemed well- reasoned, he now appears constrained to discover "strengths" about some serious offenders. Formerly, Pentwater used testimony from family members to describe the character of the defendant; he systematically constructed a picture of the defendant's social setting through evidence, through detail. The requirement to analyze using the new rubric muddies his logic and his prose. In discussing Samuel H., a twice- convicted felon, currently being arraigned on another charge of criminal sexual conduct (Fig. 17), Pentwater talks about his family providing the social life of a sexual offender. He goes on to say: The negative aspects of the defendant's background are related to the nature of his criminal history and the 149 Figure 17. Samuel H. EVALUATION AND PLAN; Mr. major strengths come from the support of his two cousins with whom he resides and their mother, his aunt, Mrs. Mae who resides accross the street. They provide for much of his financial needs and a considerable part of his social life. The negative aspects of the defendant's background are related to the nature of his criminal history and the evaluations and reports of the previous probation and parole officers and pi’ison counselors and psychiatrists. Late in the summer of 1977 the defendant violated his Assault With Intent to Rob Armed probation with his conviction of C.S.C.’ Ath degree and was sen tenced to the State Prison of Southern Michigan. The essence of the prison reports was that Initially he appeared to be a pathological liar and that he had exceptionally poor resources for coping in the community. Ho had been discharged from the Army during basic training under a menial inadequacy clause and the prison test classified his academic age at 3Ji. After being rejected for parole on two occasions and PI months in group therapy, the reports indicate that although he had an excellent work history and that his attitude was good the psychiatrict report stated that his value system still encompasses a belief that it is al right to obtain material rewards through an expedient manner regardless of its inapproiateness. It was also noted that his academic age had been reduced to 2.8 and that throughout his term in prison he denied his involvement in both cases. After completing the investigation on this offense, the writer concludes that the defendant refuses to accept any responbility for actions and continues his behaviors regardless of its Inapproiateness. evaluations and reports of the previous probation and parole officers and prison counselors and psychiatrists. With the passage of the disclosure laws and the resulting probability that the defendant would read the PSI, many informants, especially family members, have become reluctant to offer damaging judgments or even descriptive details about the defendant who may return to punish them for making incriminating statements. Pentwater, who knows how to use writing strategies, slips into passive voice for protection. In the case of Daniel F., he rarely attributes any testimony to the source: The father was described as unconcerned and an alcoholic. The mother was described as apathetic, partially crippled, and in need of medical attention which she would not seek . . . she also appeared unconcerned . . . The defendant has been shooting heroin since age 17, sniffs glue, and is reported to be drinking excessively. The mandate for a new form and the need to hide behind the passive voice combine to create a very different PSI for Pentwater, one that is less immediate and, at its worst, less logical. The case of Mattie J., long-time drug dealer, illustrates the problem (Fig. 18). This woman had been previously convicted seven times for selling heroin, which is not a minor offense. However, since the form dictates that the probation officer discuss "strengths" as well as "weaknesses," Pentwater begins with the fact that 151 Figure 18. Mattie J. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Mattie J . » Is 6l years old and widowed. Although she was born in Florida, she has lived in Detroit most of her life. For the past 13 years, she has been carlrlg for a Mr, 1 , a blind man, for which the defendant receives $1 9 7 .0 0 a month from the Dept, of Social Services. At present, she states that she is a-dlabetic and suffers from high blood pressure, arthritis and bronchitis. She has no immediate family, although she does have a son, she scales that he has not talked to him in at least 12 years. The dilbmma in tills case is that she is 6l years old and has a four page criminal record dating back to March of 19^8. Today, she stands before the Court with her third VCSA charge in the last four years. In the pest two cases, she received probation and it should be noted that 2 ' j days after her last probation case closed, she was arrested on this offense. Admittedly, the defendant is 61 years old, however, within the past 10 years, she has been convicted of five VCSA charges and the Court has had to respond to this dilemma. In each case the defendant was placed on probation and shortly after the probations closed, she found herself back before the Court. It Is in view of this continued involvement in criminal activity that the writer is recommending that she be incarcerated at the Huron Valley Women's Prison. 152 Mattie J. is "caring for . . . a blind man" and has been caring for him for 13 years. He further adds that she is a diabetic and "suffers from high blood pressure, arthritis, and bronchitis." Then he proceeds to the crime which has been transmogrified into a "dilemma" (i.e., weakness): The dilemma in this case is that she is sixty one years old and has a four-page criminal record dating back to March of 1948. Today, she stands before the court with her third VCSA charge in the last four years . . . By weakening the context of the crime, the "strengths/weaknesses" format can make serious cases appear less serious, which provides some rhetorical advantages for the first-time offender. The case of Warren H., who was convicted for possession of a firearm, illustrates this point (Fig. 19). A long (eight lines) description of his "positives," including his graduation from high school and the fact that he is a certified locksmith is followed by "the only negative factor in this case"--the crime. In a . context of positive factors, the crime is reduced to a mere "negative factor." Pentwater is awkward in accounting for the crime whether it is serious or less serious. Is the crime a "weakness" or is it the logical outgrowth of a series of events in the defendant's life? If the latter, as older 153 Figure 19. Warren H. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Mr. is 21-years old and single. He was born and raised in. - Highland Park and he is the ydungest of his parents1. four children. The defendant was raised in a stable and supportive atmosphere. His parents have never.been separated and the father has provideded for his family's financial needs through his employment by the U. S. Postal system. Mr, graduated from High School in June5of 1900 and 1ms received his certification in locksmith, plumbing and auto mechanics from Cass Tech's Night School. Mr. is now currently employed part time as a laborer for a neighborhood landlord. As the defendant has no previous Juvenile or adult record, the only negative factor in this case was the fact that he was in possession of this firearm. There are no indications, however, that the defendant had any criminal intent while in possession of this firearm. Therefore it is recommended the defendant be placed on one year probation with Its focus on the defendant furthering his educa tion. " 154 procedure statements for the PSI indicate, this current method of analysis does not provide an appropriate strategy to carry out that intention. Because many of the "old soldiers" still believe in the rehabilitative ideal and the corresponding goal of individualizing each client, they continue to compose narrative accounts of offenders' lives that contextualize the crime. They are, in fact, continuing to carry out the rhetorical intention of previous PSI procedure statements. In contrast, the "young professionals," like Pentwater, have given up any illusions about rehabilitation of the client. For them the form of the PSI matters very little. BH: If you had your choice, what would you do if you were creating a new PSI? JP: I think there is a place in the system for a PSI. Theoretically it sounds good. We don't know the individual [so] we're to look into his background, make some judgments, draw some evaluations and make some recommendations based on our experience as to what we think should happen to this individual. Theoretically, that is a very good basis to operate from and, initially, I think that is why they developed this PSI. BH: To individualize it? JP: To individualize the defendant. The fact that they are not reading them, not utilizing them makes them worthless. But I'm beginning to suspect even the theory of individualizing the defendant. There has been pressure for sentence guidelines; statistically this may be [a] better way to handle situations instead of trying to individualize it. We find out about the guy and 155 his background and all the problems he has, so now we know about this stuff. Can we do anything about it? Does it really pay for us to find out about all these guys' backgrounds and problems, if we can't help them, if we can't deal with this problem? ***** JP: If we can't do anything about it, what is the point of talking to this individual and giving him the impression that once we find about about something we're going to solve this problem, or at least we're going to try and assist him, encourage him to deal with-his problems, set him on the right track; and we can't do that . . . We're sending a message to the community that we are looking into his background and doing all this investigation and we can't do anything . . . why he did what he did is not important . . . I have to deal with the current behavior and how I can prevent his behavior from occurring again. All the social work and psychological workups they have done on this guy through the last 15-20 years obviously haven't done anything. The guy is still out there doing the things that he shouldn't be doing. Yes, I'll work up a plan of action— twenty years— or if he gets probation, I'll deal with it that way. I'll set up some strict guidelines that I want him to get involved. Pentwater has little belief in old corrections methods or current corrections metaphors, in psychological work-ups and sociological counselling. He also has little faith in the probation officer as "broker of services," a metaphor which, according to Pentwater, establishes a symbiotic relationship between probation officer and client, with the probation officer providing the means to integrate the 156 offender in society that ultimately make the client unable to create a life for himself. JP: . . . He [the client] hasn't done a thing to get where he is. We've sent him to the psychiatrist, the rehabilitation counselor, the AA meeting, the drug therapist, the whole process. He has never handled his problems himself. Pentwater readily acknowledges that his writing has changed as a result of Stevenson's training, and he welcomes the new approach, especially the charge to leave out extraneous material--although Pentwater never did appear to include extraneous material. BH: Do you find you're writing a different PSI because of the new directives? JP: The style hasn't really changed much; the quantity has a little bit. I agree with Stevenson about eliminating all the trivial information they wanted us to put in years ago, like what color telephones he had, or the color of his porch. * * * * * * BH: Do you think your writing has changed at all through these new PSIs? JP: Yes, it has simplified the document in terms of not having to do extraneous . . . you don't feel pressured to write what color house he had. BH: Do you use "strengths and weaknesses?" JP: Yes, assets, liabilities, strengths and weaknesses. BH: Did you do this before? JP: The new way works for me. I may say the man has very few strengths on which to build; his . 157 weaknesses are major problems in this case. It'll be two-three paragraphs, not long. After you read it, I think you've got a good idea of what the problems are, what the strengths are. And I will say: "It is this writer's conclusion that you have to work for the attached recommendation with its focus on encouraging this man to do this." Although Pentwater uses the new form and is generally in agreement with the goals of the administration, he says he is not willing to recede as author from this document, a rhetorical move that he believes is mandated by the state's proscription of evaluative statements in the PSI. JP: . . .I've decided that you still have to draw some conclusions. Initially, I had responded to the '83 PSI by just putting in x . . . y . . . z . . . "third felony conviction, no education or marketable skills"; or, "he has a full time job that he has held for eighteen years" and [I] drew no conclusions. But now I'm starting to put conclusions back in. "It's the writer's impression that the major problem in this case is the defendant is immature," or "he's got grandiose plans as to how he is living his life; he always sees the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow." I might say that he missed it. I've started to put some of that back in. I just don't feel comfortable with point-blank putting "strengths, weaknesses, conclusions" and I have been questioned on it. BH: I have discovered that some POs are improvising according to their own feelings. They have a mental model of what is supposed to be included in the PSI and they're pretty much the old model. JP: You learn that you start with the basic assumption when doing a PSI that they are paying you to use your experience and to make some kind of judgment based on how you've been supervising and what you see is the potential for this individual at this point. To tell us we can't 158 use our experience just runs against the grain for most people. Like the "old soldiers," this "young professional" Eeels his professionalism has been partially eroded because be is no longer encouraged'to express his own judgment about the defendant. But his professionalism has already been more seriously eroded by feelings of helplessness, which Pentwater shares with many probation officers. JP: . . . Does it really pay for us to find out about all these guys' backgrounds and problems, if we can't help them, if we can't deal with the problem? Steve Johnson Johnson is a high-skill "young professional" whose work demonstrates considerable change as a result of Stevenson's training. His 1979 PSIs are notable for colorful language— Johnson appears to have a richer lexicon than most probation officers--syntactic complexity and regular use of illuminating data from outside sources. When the situation warrants it, Johnson injects hypothesis: "though the defendant claims a ninth grade education, it is doubtful that he completed the academic requirement for this grade level." He also provides elaborate background information in supporting sections. But his summaries are long, and the occasionally unwieldy paragraphs follow a general narrative line. At 159 best, they are interesting chronologies; at worst, lengthy recitations of predominantly relevant information (see Fig. 20). While the "old soldiers" create explanatory narratives to contextualize the offender’s crime, Johnson appears to be itemizing information. Stevenson's training provides Johnson with a method of organization: SJ: . . . I do like that idea of having all of "strengths and weaknesses." I think that's a good focus for a separate narrative summary. I thought that was long overdue. I couldn't figure out why I hadn't thought of that. Johnson follows Stevenson's ideas to the letter, even to the extent of using recommended language, unlike Pentwater, for example, who sometimes uses inappropriate synonyms for strengths andsses (e.g., "dilemma"). As the PSI for Alma T. demonstrates, Johnson has reduced his sprawling paragraphs to shorter, more focused ones (Fig. 21). The form allows him to present the offender's "strengths" first, although he then inserts a sexist value judgment in his assessment of Alma T.'s "weaknesses": "Defendant's weaknesses include her lack of a marriage, despite two children by two different men, though her four- year son was fathered by her present boyfriend." It also allows him to contextualize the crime and establish her as a small-time welfare cheat whose offense is the exceptional event in her life rather than the norm. 160 Figure 20. Michael. BACIfflfiOimD SUMMARH Michael 1* a P6 ye*r old nfct$Ve of Detroit, who has resided h«he nearly ell hie Ilf*. Hd he# approximately ftveiIntelligence arid claims art 11th grAd* education from High School, Slthedgh kbiiOi prb-sentAhc©.investigation Indicates that he dropped but,of that Softool wlthdut having com- E leted the 11th grad*. He 1* one of tNr*e surviving Children o»n to »n apparently stable home. Hie father retired from the Chrysler Corporation in 19 Nb other fbmily member- Is khpwn to h*vc a 01lmlnol records Defendant wan given a general dis charge under honorable conditions After only 19 days of seivlct? cn J?.t evidently because of hln drug history. Defendant la single but admits to the paternity of a six year old non, alleg- . ^dly, i0, whom he pays $15 bi-weekly to Friend of the Cour t.* The defendant currently lealdbi kith Hi* iJkrbnts at wheie he shuibs the upstairs with two teenage female couslnw. The defendant earns approximately $75 per week cash from one for part time Janitorial woik, which he has dona for the past y#nr, Ofr and on, FOl yokre Cndlhk In March, 1^7^, he had bean employed full tim* by Industries as n epbt welder, Quitting because of trdriepbrtatlon difficulties. Defendant claim* good general health I HO Admits to having abused heroin for th# past eight or nine years, supporting » $100 a day habit In ly76 nnd 1V7T by working and, admittedly yelling marihuana. He denies dealing heroin an was the original charge In the Instant offense, claiming in hir ntatoment that the dealing wan attributed to him because he iofused to cooperate In apprehending cofelon "^llm." Defendant admits he has abused other Illicit drugs, Including vellum, cocaine, nnd ma>lhuann, but denied having abused downers until oonfionted with two urinalysis results which Wore positive 1 or baibltuiales, at which time he admitted tb having used debs approximately two weeks ago. Ho admits to having been enrolled In a methadone clinic In 197*1, briefly. Hl*» Detroit House of Correction record Indicntea that he served four days In isolation In of l97t> for uclng "apud Juice," apparently a home brew. Defendant has two pi lor felony convictions, two misdemeanor convictions, and three prior traffic convictions on hlo adult Criminal record. Two periods of six months each at the Detroit Bouse of Correction have fnlled to detc him from renewing his involvement with illicit drugs. •Defendant's Friend of the Court case indicates that * defendant has never paid his $20 per week assessment and is $5 ,8 5 6 Since two recent urlnalysaa revealed th* currant use of barbiturates, defendant may require medical detoxification, end baibituiatee following thla, because of the failure of methadone treatment in the past and in view of hia Current abuse of not only barbiturates but heroin, tHC, and Tylenol (/h in the past month, the writer ban only recommend an in patient program where the defendant would be confronted with his criminal lifestyle aggravated by his abuse of controlled substances. The defendant appears best suited for the treatment piogmm at Salvation Army Harbor Light. 161 Figure 21. Alma T. EVALUATION AND PLAN: The defendant'3 strengths include a willingness to work, which she has demonstrated steadily for the past four years at • Fried Chicken, where she Is presently nn assistant manager. She apparently lnck3 any prior criminal record and this is also denied for her family. 'She lias nn eleventh grade education and key-punch certification. She appears interested in obtaining her OED. Drug history Is denied, but urinalysis specimen taken ti /83 was not available at this writing. She appears to bo in good lienlth and her stake in the community is evident by her having residing for most of the past years In the same home, even though she is only renting. Defendant’s weaknesses include her lack of a marriage, despite two children by two different men though her four-year son was fathered by her present boyfriend. The prognosis appears good. The plan is to encourage the defendant to obtain her GED and pursue further4 vocational training, as well as Head Start Placement for her son. Restitution for fraudulent ADC claim amounts to $6.18*1. Fraudulent food stamp allotment during the name period amounts ot $1,20*1.00 for a grand total of $7,388.00, owing to the Department of Social Services. 162 However, when the defendant is a chronic offender, as in the case of Leon A., who has accumulated nine felony convictions, Johnson disparages the lone "positive" factor in his life: "The defendant's primary strength is his alleged former employment." He then proceeds to describe the defendant's lengthy "rap sheet": "The defendant's weaknesses are legion" (Fig. 22). When he feels the situation warrants it, he dispenses with "positives" altogether (Fig. 23). Johnson's PSIs demonstrate more clearly than any others the type of analysis that is built into this form. The prognosis statement is a form of hypothesis, as both Johnson and Pentwater appear to understand. But unlike Pentwater, Johnson can also use the "strengths-weaknesses" rubric as method of analysis. His "Evaluation and Plan" sections in the 1983 PSIs thus have more structure than they did previously, although he has shortened his reports considerably. In 1979, he used his not inconsiderable lexical and syntactic skills to depict offenders' individual characteristics, occasionally adding idiosyncratic bits of information to the description. His 1983 PSIs, in contrast, are less particularized. Concrete bits of information have been replaced by more general, less informative, but better organized discourse. 163 Figure 22. Leon A. EVALUATION AND PLAN: The defendant's primary strength is his alleged former employment with Industries as a plant supervisor, which he claims ended in 1977 when he fell off a truck, however, this could not be verified. He claims his substance- abuse problem ended in 1968. Defendant's weaknesses are legion. He has a criminal record commencing with Hoys' Vocational School, commencing at age 1*1 and including prison terms for Malicious Destruction of Property, in 1955; Larceny In Store, in i960; and again in 1963; nnd four-concurrent sentences from I960 to 1970 for Attempt: Violation of Drug Law, Resisting Officer, Attempt Conspiracy (pandering), and Attempt rendering. He was arrested in East Detroit for Simple Larceny, in 1981 and then on /82, wns sentenced to one year probation without re porting. On /79» he wa3 placed on six-months probation by the Honorable Leonard Townsend on a conviction of Resisting nnd Obstructing Police Officer nnd Preserving the reace; the probation stipulated no reporting and expungment upon completion, which wan granted. The defendant presently resides with his brother, the only survivor in the defendant's immediate family. The brother appears to be a drinker. Defend ant is separated from his wife, who reportedly plans to divorce him. Defendant stateB he has custody of his older child. He has a variety of injuries, which apparently preclude his working as a welder or supervisor. He has only a ninth-grade education. His urine was positive for Opiate on /83, indicating ttiat he may have a poly-substance abuse problem, which he denied. He does admit to his history of abusive heroin and cocaine in amounts of up to $150.00 per day from ages 26 to 28. He is diabetic and has a host of physical problems, Including injuries to his back, the right side of his body and apparently mild-organic brain damage. The prognosis for success appears poor, given the defendant's lack of remorse in the instant offense and his extensive criminal history, including four prior incarcerations, which did not deter film from the instant offense. 164 Figure 23. EVALUATION AND PLAN; The defendant's weaknesses are many. He has a criminal history of misdemeanor and three felony convictions including CSC - III (reduced to I) in 1977j A&B in 197^, Unlawful Use of Auto 1962, and Att. Rape in 1 9 6 1. He separated from his wife in 1 9 6 7. They have two sons, age 19. Defendant lives with his girlfriend of the past year who is supported by General Assistance. Defendant has held no lengthy employment, though he is skilled as a welder. Although he denies using heroin or other illicit drugs for at least a year and a half, his urine specimen on 7/25/83 was positive for opiates. Defendant is diabetic and claims she is currently undergoing treatment for strep throat. The defendant agreed to accept an intake appointment at Calvin Wells Treatment Program for drug free counseling on 8/4 /8 3 with Mr. Hank Malone. Prognosis for crime free behavior is poor. He had been discharged from probation only six months before and the instant offense occurred. Restitution if any to the complainant, is to be determined. 165 Relationship to Audience, Subject and Writing Act Like Pentwater, Johnson's feelings of estrangement from judges have colored his attitude toward writing. SJ: My previous supervisor didn't want me to even telephone the court aid. I'm not sure why it happened, but for a long time, I was phoning court aides when there was a question about something. We couldn't even talk to one of the judge's "flappers." BH: How does that make you feel? You are doing something he is supposed to accept. This [PSI] is recommended by somebody, as you say, who is a college graduate, perceptive and so on. How do you relate to that? SJ: It is demeaning. Makes me feel unimportant in the process. I know the judge's time is important, but to him . . . Actually I feel kind of insulated from that, too. I don't want to get real cozy with the judges, because that is less time I have to do the work I have to do, and if they want to talk to me, that's fine, too. But it would be nice to know that they were interested in what we had to say and were willing to spend a little time with us. Like Pentwater, Johnson does not believe the judges attend to the recommendations and plans of the probation officer. This concerns Johnson, who asserts that he spends considerable time working out treatment plans for seriously disturbed offenders. SJ: . . . It's frustrating when I work out a treatment plan to have a judge kind of ignore it and put the guy on probation for a short time. It's obvious that the judge's attempt was just to give the guy a slap on the wrist all along. He doesn't want to treat the deal seriously and there’s been some kind of deal going on behind closed doors. Understanding that the extra work 166 I did in the treatment plan wasn’t worth anything. I recently felt that a guy had organic brain damage problem because he had a head injury before. It was a violent offense and there was a gun involved. It wasn't fired, but it was pointed at someone. I just thought, "this cookie has a mental problem that should be dealt with," and I recommended a number of things. The judge— the feeling I got was that he didn't get anything (it was_______ , he never sentences anybody). He didn't follow any of the stipulations that would make probation meaningful. I sent something back to the judge to get the order amended--I've called the judge's court aid because it's been a month or two since I sent that in, and I've gotten no response. It's double work for me. Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered trying. Like the most alienated of the "young professionals," Johnson describes the main reward of the job as "salary, flexibility of schedule." Unlike Pentwater, who feels he has occasional success with clients ("criminals") because he can establish a rapport with them, Johnson feels as estranged from them as he does from judges. SJ: Once in awhile you feel like you're making human contact with another person. Sometimes that happens. You feel like you're going through a tough part of their lives. But that's a rarity.. Usually, I'm playing the heavy. If I get any real intense relationship develop it usually comes out, "I warned you not to do that, but you did this and this, so I'm going to put a warrant on you for these three reasons, for violating . . ." Usually the closing I don't feel good about. I'll feel I haven't really succeeded as well as I'd like to have with the person and hem the case up well. I see other people, just a few, doing a good job with their people, but I kind of feel like the morale here, especially just before Marilyn came, morale here was real low; we were all trying to keep management from crapping on us. 167 Predictably, Johnson sets little store in the concept of "individuation" and rehabilitation of offenders. The term that cropped up most often in his interview was "realistic." SJ: I try to individualize in the treatment plan, but as far as sentencing goes, I like the idea of being fair, and I like the idea of sentencing guidelines and what that's trying to do. So my personal philosophy is that there never was a whole lot of reason to believe we could rehabilitate or "habilitate" people (since they never were in the first place). I look at this [changes in the PSI] as a realistic move away from that idea. For Johnson, writing the PSI is a task to complete, one that offers little personal satisfaction, despite his writing ability, or perhaps because of it. SJ: It's box checking. There's so much information requested and we have so little time. I don't think it could be much of anything. I just rattle it off and the boxes that need to be in there are in there. BH: So you don't say to yourself, "what, do we need to get into this picture?" SJ: No. It's a listing-type thing, mostly, and all the details are in it. When asked if he considered himself a writer, Johnson responded the way most probation officers did: by associatin "writing" and "writers" with professional novelists and poets. Unlike other probation officers, he does write outside the job: "I like to think of myself that way. I've written some poetry." But he doesn't consider his on-the- 168 job writing as significant: "A computer could probably do it when they get a little more sophisticated." Though he has described the PSI as list-like and the work of the writer as mechanistic, he stops short of endorsing the idea of computerized PSIs: SJ: It's very dehumanizing to think somebody with an offense just constitutes a whole bunch of boxes . . . it would make it more objective in one way, but it would also, if it were me, I’d feel kind of dehumanized if I were reduced to a bunch of boxes and numbers. Mike Cahill Diffident and cool-tempered, Cahill appeared wary during interviews, answering questions deliberately and dispassionately— unlike many of the other probation officers in each of the groups. He is a medium-skill writer who considers himself a "paper-pusher," one who "doesn't think [of himself] as any big writer." His intention as a writer today is to meet the new guidelines: "I just pull out the guidelines when I'm writing a pre. Just get in what has to be in." In 1979 he wrote considerably longer PSIs than he does in 1983. Those earlier reports often incorporated testimony from others, as well as some judgments, in a narrative structure (Fig. 24). After Stevenson's training, Cahill's "Evaluation and Plan" sections appear shorter and 169 Figure 24. Mary Ann. BACKCBIOUHP SUMMAHY: The defendant's mother, Mary Ann , was unable to support her family on her salary snd woa forced to use her ’ Veteran Benefits ' to shelter Jeffery and his three brothers In a private "foster home" in Indiana. The defendant m s well cored for In this home with hla mother taking custody of her children on weekends and holidays. The children remained for two and « half years, until their mother eculd support them. She remarried in 1962 and removed her children at that time from the home. The defendant's mother states the defendant was loved an a child and that he was a member of a healthy family environment. The defendant completed the loth grade before quitting school due to a lack of Interest. He obtained his GED in 1973 prior to entering the Havy. The defendant and his mother state that the defendant was admitted to the U.S. Ifavy on two occasions and was discharged due to a tumor on his knee, following two years of service on both of his entrances. A check with Chief Haval Officer* failed to verify this information. Officer states a period of two weeks would be required to verify this informatlon. The defendant has no known Juvenile record. As an adult he has been convicted of two charges and was fined on both. On -75? he was convicted of ‘ obtaining Property Uhder False Pretense’ connected with the use of his girlfriend's father's credit at a service station. On 79, the defendant was fined for writing a check with non sufficient funds in account. The defendant has a pending case in Bedford Tvp., but the complainant has failed to respond to the police and a dismissal is expected. Thle charge is a "3iaiple Larceny charge from the home of a former landlord of the defendant. The defendant has a limited work record, dealing mainly with the customising of "Pleasure Vans". He states he enjoys inventing and io involved .Ln a project to Jtraild a metal beverage container crusher to distribute to retail stores. He states he has a patent ponding on this invention and a financial backer who supports the defendant and bin development costs. The defendant is found to be in good health. He states he hod feelings of depression in the past, but thoeet. have passed. He states he is a hyperactive individual and rises this as on excuse to smoke up to four packs of cigarettes daily. There is no other evidence of drug or alcohol abuse. The defendant's mother feels that the defendant io frustrated and does not have the meens available to him to become the success he desires. She suggests further education would be of benefit. 170 generally follow the "strengths/weaknesses" format although they do not exhibit Stevenson's terminology (Fig. 25). Cahill believes the modifications enhance the document by eliminating "repetition” and making the document more "uniform": "I’m sure the old pres weren’t as uniform as they are trying to make them." Comments during his interview reveal that Cahill uses the term "uniform" to suggest a quality that will pass judicial inspection and reflect well upon the writer. MC: . . . If you want to do a good job on anything, it would seem to do one for this. It’s not going to be buried away in a file. Attorneys are going to scrutinize it. If the attorney discusses it with the defendant, they can object to it in court. Unlike Pentwater, Cahill is reluctant to draw hypotheses (a term most probation officers define as "make judgments") about offenders because he believes most probation officers can't know the full measure of a man’s life: MC: I'm not a trained psychologist. No. Who's to say, "he has a problem with authority." Maybe the kid's teacher was an asshole. Maybe he didn't like kids . . . I think you can get into the problem without saying, "I think this is what is causing the problem." While other "young professionals" feel estranged from the judge-as-audience, Cahill's attitude lies somewhere between this group's and that of the "old soldiers" who 171 Figure 25. David. KVAMIATION AND PLAN: Defendant is a 21 year old single male. Me is a first offender who .admits guilt in the within offense. Despite his placement in special education classes defendant obtained a diploma in 1982. Mo has hold full -time employment since that time, a security guard. Defendant .should benefit f t ora continued "mp 1 < •/ nn'iit. Defendant was described as a "remarkable student" by his teacher, considering David's numerous foster home pine, i-ents. Mis siblings have numerous police contacts and his mother has a history of mental disorders. Defendant's mother described defendant as a bonding force in their family over the past two years. Defendant resides with his mother in their Taylor home and contributes toward the family bills. There is no evidence of alcohol or drug abuse by defendant and he is viewed as a good candidate for community supervision. 172 view themselves as the "aide” or "arm" of the judge. He views himself as an "interpreter" of events for the judge who, without the discourse-based PSI, would not understand the significance of common corrections terms like "substance abuse problem." MC: Some people would say [that] "substance abuse problem" is "the guy has tried marijuana three times last year "... where other people might say "after four years of heroin use, Share House, one year, and hasn't used in six months" would say "no" [defendant has no problem]. At least in the written aspect [of the PSI], the judge would be able to interpret what a "yes" or a "no" would mean. Brenda Dobson Brenda Dobson, a medium-skill writer, is the only "young professional" who refused to talk to me, often pretending not to be in when I came by her office. It became clear to me that no one in the office wanted to "mess with" Brenda, because she reputedly had "emotional problems." But the former manager had recommended that Brenda be in my group of informants, for reasons I later came to question. Brenda questioned the reasons long before I did. While her colleague, Renee Nichols, who has been classed as a "burned out case," generally wrote terse, unelaborated summaries in 1979, Brenda Dobson was writing a wide variety of background summaries. Some were so 173 abbreviated, they give no sense of the defendant (Fig. 26); others extend from one to one-and-a-half pages, presenting psychological observations and judgments about the offender (Fig. 27). The cases illustrated in Figures 26 and 27 are first offenders who had been convicted of relatively minor crimes. Despite these situational similarities, each is treated very differently. She arranges longer summaries haphazardly, without any clear narrative or deductive structure, following the same item-hopping format as Renee Nichols, although with more elaboration. Dobson's work does not have the flat emotional character that Nichol's does, because Dobson includes short narratives within her long summary of facts, recounting comments from relatives and friends and drawing analyses and judgments from those comments. While her analyses are sprinkled with psychological jargon, she appears sensitive to the offender's condition and interested in discovering an appropriate treatment plan for him or her. In the case of Deborah M., who was arrested after buying marijuana for her brother, she states: It is this writer's opinion that Ms. M. represents a passive-submissive personality, and although this offense is truly of a serious nature, the real criminal act lies hidden in Ms. M.'s past. To incarcerate her may well serve to perpetuate the same kind of environment for her children, thus creating a 174 Figure 26. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: is a 59 year old Black divorced., self-employed male, senior citizen, born in Georgia. The defendant has lived in the Detroit area for 42 years. The subject states he has one sibling, a 4th grade education, and a U.S. Army honorable discharge. He resides at , and is self-employed since age 17 years. Defendant claims a service connected disability (SCD) for which he is medically prescribed pain pills. The defendant is a member of the Baptist faith and at this writing, he claims no assets and minimal liabilities. Subject has no identifiable assaultive history. 175 Figure 27. Background Summary: The defendant, , is an 18 year old, Black male, born August 1961 In Detroit, Michigan. Defendant's parents cure: and There Is one sibling. He is . age 16 years. Defendant states he was raised by his grandfather to age ten. The mother did rot marry until defendant was ago six years, and the father went Into the United states Army when defendant was two-and-a-holf years old. Defendant stated that he does not care very much for his father because, since age 12, the father beats and degrades him whenever drinking. Defendant states that It seemed to him that the father has disliked him since the father returned from the Service. Accordingto defendant, the father Is an alcoholic since returning from 24illtary, and he is the reason defendant's parents were evicted from last address at Defendant states the mother is good to him, easygoing and understanding. The mother is employed for Hospital as a nurse's Aide, while the father enjoys Unemployment 3enefits. Defendant states his parents will move into their own apart ment on and Boulevard, before the end of December. 1979. Defendant's 16 year old brother attends a Special School on Avenue In Detroit. The brother is hydrocephalic. He has one leg shorter than the other and a severe problem with his Nervous System. Defendant states he has known his girlfriend since 1973 and he has two children by her, ages one year and three months. The girlfriend is age 18 years. She is receiving A.D.C. Grants lnlhe amount of $167.00 biweekly. Writer visited with the defendant andliu girlfriend at . The defendant and his girlfriend were playing with their two sons, , age one year, and , age three months. '3he girlfriend appeared to order the defendant around, while the defendant acted in more of a mother role with with the children than the girlfriend. The girlfriend told writer that she believed that defendant could not road well enough to attempt any Educational Programs, although she Is presently pursuing her G.E.D. The girlfriend added that defendant was needed around die home to watch the two children. Defendant also displayed different Electrical appliances ha had repalrad. Writer questioned defendant and girlfriend as to when they planned to marry. The girlfriend stated that marriage u&s a subject she would not discuss, and onethat was a sore spot In the household. During the entire Interview in defendant’s home, defendant did not speak unless he first received some gesture of approval or recognition from the girlfriend. When questioned as to whether or not hewsuld be agreeable to entering and completing a G.E.D. Program, defendant stated he would if his mother would bring him when he did not have bus fare Writer referred defendant to the Hew "Free Employment Training Program^ and the Hew "CETA Detroit Project." If accepted into one of the Programs, defendant would receive $2.90 pur hour to attend. The girlfriend stated that her Social Services Worker knew defendant resided with hor, and the Worker considers defendant to be one of the family. According to the girlfriend, defendant can receive General Assistance at her address as long as he does not pay her rent. 176 never-ending cycle. Ms. M. does not have an assaultive background; she is taking steps to upgrade herself academically and futuristically maintain gainful employment. In the case of Michael E. (Fig. 28), a young car thief, Dobson appears to recognize the defendant's problem but is still willing to offer him another chance, recommending that he complete his education and receive employment counselling while on probation. She is much more pessimistic in estimating Morris R.'s chances of rehabilitation, describing this long-time drug user and seller as a fifty-year old man who has been: Unemployed for at least seven years and addicted to drugs, either physically or emotionally. At this stage of the game the defendant knows the drug culture. If he is incarcerated, he may probably feel at home. If he is enrolled in a facility for drug abusers, he may probably feel at home there, too [Fig. 29]. A picture of Morris P. emerges from this summary despite Dobson's occasionally inexpert syntax and inexact diction. The structure and content of Dobson's PSIs have been strongly affected by Stevenson's training. In 1983, many of her PSIs are much shorter, resembling the shortest of her 1979 PSIs. Some, like the one for Willie A., utilize the Stevenson format and language (Fig. 30); others adopt a "strengths/weakness" format without using the language (Fig. 31). In most cases, psychological jargon as well as detail has been stripped out leaving a paucity of 177 Figure 28. Michael E. Evaluation! Writer attempted to secure Juvenile Record of defendant, case notes, etc. Defendant's file cannot be made available until November 1979 due to reorganisation. According to Mr. - he spent several months In the School, after which ne was placed Into a Halfway House In Bay city, Michigan. Mr. states ho remained In the Halfway House long enough to secure employment as a "Stock. Boy" and as a Janitor. He also attended G.JS.D. classes. Mr. states he left the Home unauthorized at age 17? and no attempts were mode by Authorities to force his return because of his age. Writer spoke with Mr. Robert Smith, Director of the "Day at Jackson Program. The Program 1* a component of "Project Jolt," and has been working with defendant since Mr. Smith states their Program Includes counseling, situational analysis, education, employment, close contact with the parents, and a day spent in State prison of Southern Michigan. Mr. Smith added that should defendant be granted probation, his office would work closely with defendant and Probation Department. Mr. Smith can be reached at During the Interview on Mr. Indicated he believes breaking the law was the only alternative he had at his disposal In order to survive, and he appeared extremely bitter. Ho appeared to bo unable to visualize himself employed and productive. Mr. * ® . is sorely In need of education, employment and counseling. Moreover, defendant projects a definite lack of self worth. It Is this writer's opinion that Incarceration at this time may only serve to create a stronger criminal element. Mr. has spent of his youth In Stato Institutions, yet he remains unchanged, unrehabllltated, and most important, defendant has no appreciation of "self.'' Luckily, Mr. does not abuse drugs. At this stage in Mr. criminal history, he should be afforded the opportunity to pursue the Educational, Employment Counseling Program aforementioned. However, should he continue his negative Involvements after help la conscientiously extended to him, then and only then will Incarceration be Justifiable. 178 Figure 29. Morris R. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Is a SO year old married unemployed black male. Defendant vas raised primarily by mother, he has three siblings and is married for the pa3t 11 years to nee Defendant has an 8th grade education and military history both honorable and dishonorable. He is re - aiding vith his vife and step-son on Defendant has a long and extensive illicit drug history dating back to 1950. According to defendant's own admittance and that of his vife, defendant has undergone therapy in numerous drug abuse agencies to no avail. Defendant's arrest .record is lengthy both for convictions and non-convictions, and defendant has served ti.ae in prison. The defend ant's wife admits that defendant causes her grief, but above all, 'she states she loves him. The defendant is 50 years of age, unemployed for at least 7 years and addicted to drugs, either physically or emotionally. At this stage of the game, defendant knows the drug culture. If he is incar cerated, he may probably feel at home. If he is enrolled into an inpatient ^facility for. drug abusers, he may probably feel at home there, too. When this writer asked defendant whether or not he began using drugs to escape from the misery of a war, defendant stated emphatically that he did not have to fight or experience the traumas of other soldiers. According to defendant, he began using drugs because they were easy to get end he enjoyed them. It is obvious to this writer that although defendant is 5 0 years of age, he is still not mature enough to realize the seriousness of his drug involvement nor, the implication. •It' seems unlikely that he will benefit from community supervision due to his age, the nature of past criminality and the strong likllhood of continued criminal activity. It is felt he might benefit from sub stance abuse programming, however, this would have to be within the confines of an Institution, if defendant is to benefit over a period of time. 179 Figure 30. Willie A. EVALUATION AND PLAN: The following are positive factors concerning this defendant: He experienced a stable family background, there is no identifiable previous criminal history. Juvenile or Adult and the defendant matriculated for one year in the Norfolk State College of Norfolk, Virginia. Negative factors include: Alcohol abuse problems as evidenced by the defendant's own admission. Further, the defendant is unemployed. The defendant’s future adjustment will depend on how effectively he resolves his alcohol dependency and if he will avail himself to Community Alcohol Counseling Programs as referred by the Probation Department. Community Supervision is recommended. 180 Figure 31. James. EVALUATION AND PLAN: James is a 36 year-old, African/American, native of Arkansas. He was reared in a stable environment and he possesses a high school diploma from the Arkansas Public School system. Although unemployed, the defendant is financially stable, having invested in income property in the Detroit area. The v/ithin offense is the defendant's first Pelony for which he is convicted, and in 1975 there was one Misdemeanor conviction. There are no identifiable indications of illicit drug usage. The prognosis for future adjustment appears to be good, providing the defendant stays away from further contact with illicit drugs. Community supervision is recommended. 181 information about the defendant and the repeated hypothesis: "The prognosis for future adjustment appears to be good." Cathy Meldrum Meldrum's work shows the least change of any of the "young professionals" between the years 1979 to 1983. In 1979 she was writing straightforward summaries that included little detail or corroborating information and almost no analysis or judgment. They are dispassionate accounts that reveal little but "facts" about the defendant (see Fig. 32). Despite Stevenson's training, her 1983 PSIs are arranged and developed similarly. They are little more than lightly elaborated box-checking, and have the same dispassionate tone (Fig. 33). When I asked her if she used the new format, she explained why she didn't: CM: I find it very difficult to do that. Only in a very few cases do you find clear positive and negative strengths, and in the reports we do here, there are so many negatives in these peoples' lives, I just prefer not to do them that way. There aren't many positive things, and it seems like I'm searching to find some positives and negatives, and I just don't feel comfortable. Meldrum considers the PSI informative in aim. But if the probation officer is going to recommend prison she has to "back herself up:" 182 Figure 32. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION: This 27 year old male was placed on probation as a juvenile for Breaking and Entering and Larceny. He has two misdemeanor convictions as an adult and on February 1970 he was placed on two years probation by Honorable Joseph Sullivan under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act for Breaking and Entering Business Place with intent to Commit Larceny. He was discharged from probation on January 1973 and the case was dismissed. The defendant came from a broken home situation in which the parents were divorced when he was a baby and his mother remarried four times. The defendant has an eleventh grade education. He has been employed for the past one and a half years at Company. He is married and resides with his wife and child in . The defendant denies use of illegal drugs and to drinking alcoholic beverages. His wife, however, states that he is a heavy drinker. The defendant was evaluated by two psychiatrists In 1970 prior to being placed on probation by Judge Sullivan. The defendant was also involved in psychiatric counseling at Lafeyette Clinic for approximately one year while on probation. The defendant was uncooperative during the presentence interview and refused to answer many questions asked of him. In addition several of his answers were contradicted by his wife. 183 Figure 33. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Before the Court is a 32-year-old single male, who has one prior criminal conviction for Operating Under the Influence of Liquor. The defendant has a lengthy traffic record consisting primarily of Impaired Driving charges and Driving on Suspended License violations. The defendant presently has a pending OUIL from Flatrock and a Driving on Suspended License charge in Riverview. The defendant is scheduled to appear in court on 83 on both cases. The defendant is a high school graduate, who is presently un employed. He has operated his own ■ ' business in the past. The defendant admits that he has been a heavy drinker since he was in the Navy in 1970. The defendant has participated in two alcohol treatment programs while on probation for traffic of fenses. The defendant also attended Alcoholics Anonymous meet ings for a brief period in 1982. The defendant appears to be willing to participate in an alcohol treatment program; however, the defendant's mother feels that the defendant will probably not follow through on treatment. He has been referred to the in-patient program at and he is presently on a waiting list for treat ment. It is recommended that the defendant be placed on two years probation with the conditions that he enter Sacred Heart as soon as space is available. It should be impressed upon the de fendant that he will be violated from probation if he does not complete the Scared Heart Program. The defendant should not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle during his probation term. He should also be required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly. 184 BH: How do you do that? CM: In your last paragraph you have to come up with some good reasons why you can’t work with this guy in the community. Like some other "young professionals," Meldrum does not believe that she has much power as a writer. Whatever persuasive power the PSI has for her is generated by itemizing facts. BH: Sometimes POs work on weaving together bits of information; some just let it be there for the judge to read. CM: I just list it; that's the way it is. Despite her limited view of her role as writer, she enjoys writing: "It's the part of the job I like the best." But unlike Pentwater and Dobson, she does not believe the probation-officer-as-writer has the authority to draw hypotheses from the facts: CM: I just try to make my report pretty much objective. I deal with facts. I don't think I ever really gave my opinions unless I could back it up with facts. There are a lot of people who you would think were trained psychologists when you read their reports. I don't feel I have the qualifications to make those kinds of statements and I never did. She enjoys composing the PSI because "it's kind of like doing detective work, putting someone's life together, putting all these things together ..." But she does not believe she writes for anyone's approval: "Do we get any positive reinforcement? None whatsoever." Like many of the 185 "young professionals/' she has little or no relationship with judges--"If I was in an elevator with one of them, they wouldn't know who I was"--and little belief in the efficacy of supervising offenders: CM: . . . I just don't think we're very effective. You just can't change these people. I am very pessimistic about that. To me, doing the PSI is the most interesting part. Despite evidence that probation officers in other areas are using Stevenson's new format, she stated: "I don't think what Stevenson has to say to anyone is taken seriously." BH: Why not? CM: I don't know why not, but we listened to him, then went on doing things the way we always did them. There are a couple of people here that do it that way. I don't read other peoples' pres, so there could be more. Ratliff does it that way. I couldn't tell you why [other POs don't do it] other than it's just tough for people to change. Especially those who have been here for twenty years and [who] don't see any merit in changes. Changes are slow. Irene Ditka Irene Ditka, a medium- to low-skill "young professional" with a social work background, is less cynical than others in this group. She still believes judges read the PSI: "I still think the judges take a great deal of [our] recommendations; they look at those 186 documents and make a decision on that.” Unlike more cynical "young professionals," she views herself as important to the corrections process. Even though she knows judges would not recognize her, she believes they know her through her report: "By face they don't know us; by our reports they do." BH: So how do you view your relationship with the court system? Where do you fit in? ID: Oh, I think I'm right there, not in the building with them, but I think we are as important. In the case there is the judge, the defendant, the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney and the probation officer . . . Those are the five main actors in this scenario. That's how I view it. Ditka believes that the probation officer's role in this scenario is to gather and present facts not to "write about" the defendant: "Let's do the facts; let's put down the facts." She neither views herself as a writer nor considers the PSI as a document having rhetorical force, that she, as its creator, contributes to: BH: Do you view yourself, and I'm asking this of everybody, as a writer. I don't mean like Hemingway, but this job requires writing. ID: That's funny, because when I think of writers I would think of Hemingway; I wouldn't think of us. BH: In our business, anyone who writes is a writer. ID: Well, then, I guess we are then, but I never thought of it that way before. I just thought of it as "fact gatherer" and putting down the facts. Because when I think of writing, I think you have 187 to elaborate and you have to get their attention, you have to put in some flowery words. I don't think of it that way; I think of it as just putting down the facts, and if 50 people read it they come to the same conclusion. This guy needs help here. Ditka believes that her writing could be improved: IR: . . . Some people write better than others. Some people gather facts better. I don't think I'm as well at writing. I have some sample pres of people that write very well, and I like to pull those out and say: "Oh, that's how to put it down; this is how they incorporated that fact about a person." When I asked her about strategies she used to pull facts together, she was specific: BH: Do you think about connectives--I'm thinking as a writing teacher--Do you think about using connecting words to connect sections, "even though he . . ." "however," or do you use logical connectors while you're going through? Do you improvise or make revisions? ID: Oh, sure. I just wrote this and I'll go over it again and read it again, and think "can I express this better?" BH: When you say "express it better," what would you be doing? Changing words? ID: I try and condense it. What took a paragraph, if we went over this now and you said we are going to do it again, I would go over it and I would condense it. I have a tendency to pull things in and ramble on. Her work is condensed, so much so that gaps in logic, lapses into post hoc reasoning and faulty conclusions occur often enough to be considered characteristic of her work. One of her cases deals with Doris F., who is convicted of 188 selling P.C.P.— a highly dangerous drug that causes delusions and extreme paranoid reactions in human users. It is not Doris's first offense. Ditka demonstrates the advisability of probation by writing: "She is frightened by what may occur, not that she has been convicted. This is apparent by her losing fifteen pounds in two months and an inability to sleep" (Fig. 34). She does not consider that Doris' weight loss might be attributable to her ingesting some of the substances she sells. Stevenson's training does little to improve her problems with logic. Arthur L. stands convicted of armed robbery. His potential sentence is life imprisonment (Fig. 35). In her "Evaluation and Plan," Ditka tries to utilize terms that Stevenson suggests, i.e., "positive factors" but, unlike "old soldier" Randazzo she does not elaborate on them, either here or in latter parts of the PSI. She believes therapy with Dr. W.--"to try to discover why he committed the within offense"--is sufficiently significant to warrant placing it in the second paragraph. In an interview she claims not to use Stevenson's format: 189 Figure 34. Doris F. EVALUATION- AND PLAN: The defendant is a 30 year old white female born on February 1951 in Michigan. She is the oldest of two girls born to her parents' union. She left school after her mother's death while attending the eleventh grade. She claims to have had a hard time adjusting to her mother's death and her father's second marriage. I She has beerr married to her husband since age 17. They have two children ages 12 and 10. The family resides in a home they have owned for five years. They rent the upstairs to a tenant for extra income. The family is supported by her husband, who is a Machine Repair Leader at ' Plant. Defendant claims to have tried P.C.P. at age 18, strictly on an experimen tal basis. She admits to occasionally drinking wine. 1 ' 1 \! Her criminal record is marred by one prior offense occurring in 1978, which Involved the defendant taking clothes (value under $100) from 11- Marts Shopping Center. , ,’ i . I ■ In regards to the within offense, defendant denies selling any P.C.P. to an undercover officer. She claims tlst the co-defendant, who is now de ceased,! made the'sale behind her home in the alley. She is extremely 190 Figure 35. Arthur L. EVALUATION AND PLAN: 19, is the product of a stable, positive home environment. His father is a recently retired research chemist, his mother a homemaker. He graduated front and subsequently enlisted -into the U.S. Matine Corps Reserves and will remain active for the next six years. He has been gainfully employed since 1980- The defendant's father indicated that, since March 1983, his son has been attending weekly therapy with Dr. to try an discover why he committed the within offense. The defendant denies the use of alcohol and drugs and there is no indication to believe otherwise. There are are many positive factors in the defendant's life-style and this offense is is first criminal conviction, it is felt that probation under the H.Y.T.A. is warranted. The complainant was contacted and no restitution need be established - 191 ID: . . . I don’t do it pinpoint. He says to put in positives and negatives; I don't do that. The defendant's positive side; no I still do the narrative. BH: You do the narrative? ID: But I've always done pres where you put the good, you put the bad. BH: Do you weave them together, or do you say "here is the good first?" ID: Oh, no, it's all weaved together. But her PSIs indicate that she does make some attempt to place "positive factors" first, no matter how inappropriate this organization may be to the situation. In the case of Patricia J.--a striptease dancer and part- time prostitute convicted of attempted larceny from a potential client--Ditka expresses concern about Ms. J.'s career plans before she addresses more salient issues (see Fig. 36). Ditka wants to improve as a writer: "to me, it's like school. If I liked my teacher, I wanted to do good. And if I like my supervisor, I do good." But Stevenson's training, with its emphasis on stripping out detail and organizing major facts as "strengths and weaknesses," does not address her problems in critical thinking. Her recent work appears even less well-developed than former PSIs and 192 Figure 36. Patricia J. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Before the Court is a 30-year-old single female with an 18 month old son. She is currently unemployed and has been since the birth of her child. She was full time employed for the past ten years as a striptease dancer; she intends on pursuing that occupation and ceasing to receive welfare assistance when she can lose her pregnancy weight. TheXdefendant graduated from High School and main tained "a B average. She also attended College in Detroit, for one year. Ms. Kreager has a prior conviction for Accosting s. Soliciting and peadily .admits her past history when she prostituted. However, she, flatly denied soliciting since the birth of her son, and re fuses to engage in that activity in the future. A case is pending in Wyandotte, Michigan for Disorderly Person. She indicates good health, however, she may have a drug depen dency problem. She admitted to taking at least five valiums on the night of the within offense, along with consuming alcohol. In regards to the within offense, she denies taking .the com- Dlainant's wallet and keys. She claims that when co-defendant, began hitting the complainant, she fled the motel room. 193 more logically skewed. This is a problem shared by the burned-out cases. The Disaffected Probation Officers Writing Samples (1979-83) and Interviews The "burned-out cases" are medium-to-low skill writers whose comments and writing suggest that they may have lost any guiding sense of intention in writing the PSI except for preventing criticism and maintaining their jobs. Beset by low skills and low motivation, they either continue using old methods (Mowbry), or they attempt to comply with new directives, but in the process create unelaborated paragraphs in pallid prose (Nichols and Ratliffe). Like the law professors described in R.M. Unger1s book, The Critical Legal Studies Movement, the "burned-out cases" are like "a priesthood that had lost their faith and kept their jobs" (Woodard 27). Renee Nichols Nichols is a medium-to-low skill writer whose work from 1979-83 is highly routinized. The summary section from Charles E.'s PSI demonstrates her tendency to "cover all the bases," i.e., write one or two sentences about each of the required pieces of information: names of parents, 194 siblings, wife, children, school history, work history, drug history (see Fig. 37). Unlike "young professionals," Pentwater and Johnson, Nichols has a limited lexicon and limited syntactic skills. In her summary sections, she rarely interposes comments from family or friends, even in 1979 when informants felt more secure in commenting about the defendant. As a result, her work lacks color and distinguishing detail. After reading even a few of her PSIs, it is difficult to discriminate between various offenders because she uses little description that might endow individual cases with "presence." When unusual information surfaces in her interviews, as in the case of Timothy R., who witnessed the fatal shooting of his mother at the hands of his brother, this information is presented as just one more "fact" (Fig. 38). The offender, the crime and the context for the crime dissolve into an undifferentiated mass. Her work in 1979 and 1981 reflects limited compositional skills. She presents information in long paragraphs that include few connectives between ideas and contain little or no hypothesis about events. After Stevenson's training, she begins to use a three-paragraph format that, in some cases involving serious crime, reflects Stevenson's method of analysis. In Figure 39, 195 Figure 37. Charles E. Background Summary: The defendant was born on in Ohio. He is the first of two children born to the union of Both of the defendant's parents are deceased. His one brother resides in Detroit and works for Truck Co. The defendant does not share a close relationship with his brother. The defendant has lived in Detroit since he was four years old. He attended the Detroit Public School System until he reached the 10th grade. He stated he quit so he could work full time. He is presently residing at He does not have a phone. The defendant was married to They have been divorced since 1957. They had one son, age 22. The defendant's son was sentenced to 2-5 years at SPSM ror Att. B & E Occupied Dwelling. He was sentenced on by Recorder's Court Judge O'Brien. The defendant has not worked since 1971 due to an injury he received in his arm during an argument. He is currently receiving welfare in the amount of $94 every two weeks plus food stamps. The defendant never served in the military. In regards to substance abuse, the defendant stated he has only abused heroin. He 'first experimented with heroin in 1974. Defendant admitted to being addicted and stated at his highest point he was using heroin four times a week. He alleges he was only spending $40 a week. In 1975j the defendant enrolled in a drug abuse program. He quit after three months stating he could no longer take the methadone. Urinalysis requested on 6/21/79 returned negative for drug content. The defendant has three prior felony convictions. The defendant was cooperative during the interview, however, he could not recall much of the information asked of him. He did not admit to being guilty or innocent. He simply stated he agreed with the police report. 196 Figure 38. Timothy R. EVALUATION AND PLAN Timothy Is an l8-year-old male, who was born on -6 3 in Detroit, Ml. Both of his parents are deceased. Since age the defendant has resided with his grandmother, They currently reside at Tne defendant attended the public school system in Detroit, and from Jan.-8l to Jun.-8l, he went to school in Dayton, Oh. Defendant stated he moved to Dayton with his sister. to see if he could do better In school. He attended High School, and received a good grade in all classes except one. He stated he planned to return to Dayton when classes begin in Sept.-8l. The defendant does not have much work experience to speak of. He has only had one part-time job. The de fendant has never been married, and does not have any children. The defendant had a disruptive childhood. His mother stayed on the go, and the family was evicted from their home on several occasions. Defendant and his siblings were later taken in by their grandmother. ]h 1 9 7 7, the defendant witnessed his brother accidentally shoot and kill their mother. As a result, during the defendant's childhood, he has suffered with a nervous condition since he was age 7. Defendant denied ever being hospitalized for a serious illness or injury. He also denied ever abusing drugs or alcohol. Defendant believes In the Baptist faith. He has no assets or liabilities. 197 she is describing Harold R., who has had ten prior felony convictions. Paragraph two begins with this statement: "The negative factors in the defendant's life have all stemmed from his prior drug abuse." She then elaborates on this thesis and concludes, using Stevenson's language again: "After considering the positive and negative factors in the defendant's life, it is respectfully recommended that the defendant be sentenced to a term of probation, given certain stipulations." However, in most 1983 cases, she breaks her "Evaluation and Plan" into three paragraphs that function as three page breaks, as a nod to Stevenson's training, without utilizing any method of analysis. She demonstrates minimal compliance with new regulations, creating PSIs that appear, in tone and substance, much like her earlier ones (Fig. 40). After agreeing to participate in the study, Ms. Nichols then repeatedly declined to see me. Her supervisor relayed the information that Ms. Nichols felt she had "enough to do" without talking to me. Other probation officers suggested that Ms. Nichols believed I might be a spy sent from the State office of Corrections to evaluate her performance. No comments that I relayed to her could persuade her differently. 198 Figure 39. Harold R. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Rudolph grew up being called Harold so he .uses that ; name the most. His mother' died when he was one year old. lie '.was reared, by his grandmother, who always called him Harold. The ^defendant basically experienced a normal childhood with no major problems. He dropped out of school and later completed his education while incarcerated. He received his diploma in 19P0. Th,e ..defendant .is, divorced. From his marriage was born one son. Hed:a 1 so'-adm i ts paternity of two others. The defendant was employed at as a Doorman. The club just recently' closed down due to a fire. It is in the process of being remodeled. The defendant hopes to be called back to work once';’the repairs are finished. The defendant was addicted to d.rugs.-,- > .He stated that he has not used any drugs since 1973. ■ A urinalysis taken on -83, returned negative for drug content. He. admitted that he drinks alcohol but denies being an alcoholic. The ,, negative factors in the defendant’s life have all stemmed, from 'his’prior drug abuse. The defendant has a criminal record dating from 1347. His last conviction was for a Misdemeanor in tha.t, he started using, heroin when he was 18 years old. lie used the ’drug intravenously and became addicted after a few months. He continued to use the drug pretty regularly until Ihis last period of incarceration in 1973. For about two years, he was involved in the drug abuse program offered at the Veteran's Hospital. he was in the U. H. Air Force from to - He was Honorably Discharged. The defendant stated that he is now drug free. He drinks alcohol often, but denies really abusing it. The defendant described his health as being good, however, he has suffered with several illnesses. He now appears to be trying to keep his life in order. After considering the positive and negative factors in the. defendant's life, it is respectfully recommended that the defendant be sentenced to a term of probation, given certain stipulations. 199 Figure 40. Geraldine. EVALUATION AND PLAN: Geraldine was born and reared in Detroit by her parents. She experienced a normal childhood with no major problems. The defendant has close family ties. She completed 11 years of her education, before quitting because of her pregnancy. She has yet to obtain a GED certificate. The defendant has very little prior vioi*k experience. She has not worked since 1979- The defendant stated that she did not have a present source of in come. She plans to look for employment or apply for General Assistance. The defendant has been separated from her husband for five years. She is the mother of two children. The defendant and her children are presently residing with her mother. She stated that her health is good and she has only been hospitalized on one occasion. The defendant does have a prior criminal record. She has two prior Felony convictions. According to the BC.IN inquiry, she also has two outstanding warrants. The defendant stated that she doesn't understand why the warrants are pending. To her knowledge, both cases had been dismissed. She did admit that her prior convictions were the result of her .involvement with drugs. For approximately two years, between 1975 and 1977, the defendant stated that she was using heroin on a regular basis. She also stated that she enrolled in a drug-abuse program until she completed it and was dis charged. The defendant stated she became involved with drugs because her husband was selling them. The defendant stated that her involvement in this case is a result of her trust in her estranged husband, who ended up using her. She admitted to having the check, but denied knowing it was stolen. It appears that the defendant used poor judgement in this case. After considering the information gathered for this report, it Is respect fully recommended that the defendant be sentenced to a term of probation. However, due to the defendant's outstanding warrant for probation Violation, it is also being recommended that a period of incarceration be held in abeyance, depending on the defendant's adjustment. 200 Rick Ratliffe Like "young professional" Steven Johnson, Ratliffe wrote long, unstructured summaries in 1979. Ratliffe's summaries, however, demonstrate little lexical or syntactic fluency. His 1979 narrative summary of Linda L.'s case is interrupted occasionally by breaks in the chronology ("prior to this") giving the appearance of "stream of consciousness" discourse (Fig. 41). After Stevenson's training, Ratliffe's PSIs appear radically different (Fig. 42). He utilizes the "strengths/weaknesses" format and language, reducing his formerly long, unstructured summaries to three short, non elaborated paragraphs. The offender, Fred R., is an assaultive personality, with two previous felony convictions. Given the man's previous record and the nature of the current offense, Ratliffe is going to recommend prison; however, to accommodate the analytic structure of the new form he begins by mentioning that the "defendant is purchasing his new home." By placing this fact first in the "Evaluation and Plan," he endows it with a a level of significance and importance far beyond its actual value to the case. In the hands of less skilled writers like Ratliffe, the new form creates discourse that is not appropriately 201 Figure 41. Linda L. Background Summary: In a 21 year old married female, born to the union of , ages and H2 respectively. The defendant has no 'prior Juvenile or adult criminal record. Her parents were divorced when she was ten years of age and she was subsequently raised by her mother in , Florida. She states that her and her brother came back to Detroit when she was 16 years of age to stay with her father's mother and father because they were ill, 'She claims tto have a harmonious relationship with both parents and siblings, denying any criminal record on any other family member'. ■She-states that her father is a certified public accountant for and that her mother is a housewife. Defendant -currently resides at with her husband and one child. lAnda married one on August 1975 in the City of Detroit. She describes their marital relationship to be fair, indicating some problems with her husband. She admits to having occasional arguments, however denies any assaults. One child by the name of was born as a result-of this union, she is approximately 17 months old. Mrs. indicates that her husband was the one who introduced her to heroin. She states that her husband is unemployed at present, prior to which he was working at as a laborer, however was laid off in February 1979- She states that he has Just recently received unemployment compensation benefits in the amount of $200 biweekly. The defendant is also unemployed, stating her last employment was from August 1976 until April 1977 at which time she was employed at Bank downtown as a computer operator, receiving gross remuneration in the amount of $152 weekly. She states her reason for leaving this position was due to a maternity leave. Prior to this the subject has had two Jobs as a salesperson and cashier at two different clothing stores. The defendant was questioned as to how her and her husband have been supporting themsolves since February 1979 and she states that they have supported themselves through savings, income tax refunds, and family assistance. Defendant emphatically denies delivery of drugB by her or her husband as a means of support. Subject is a high school graduate who graduated from High School in the City Of Detroit in 1975. Prior to this all of her education was obtained at ^athollc School in ‘ . Florida. Mrs. states the only drugs used have been that of heroin and marijuana,, indicating she first commenced the use of marijuana at age 16 and - progressed to heroin at age 20. She states that she was introduced to heroin by her husband after becoming aware of his uso of this drug approximately 11 months ogos She states she was appalled when she found out about his use of heroin and her initial response was that . she did not approve of the use of heroin. However she states that she began injecting this substance either out of curiosity or attempts to maintain their marriage and after using this drug she liked its affects and became addicted to it. Defendant claims the highest habit ever reached it that of $20 worth every other day and that her husbands habit was the some. When interviewed on 5-31-79, the subject stated that she had quit using" heroin approximately two days prior to thlsj a urinalysis token this date proved^Positive for Morphine and Quinlno. She also indicates that her and her husband had Just entered Project Headline Drug Clinic for counseling. Subject states that she wishes to discontinue the use of this drug and appears to be sincere in her attempts to do so. She states that prior to her arrest she had already made an appointment with Project Headline in attempts to become drug free. In regards to her marijuana usage, she states she only smokes occasionally due to her poor lungs. Defendant describes her general health to be fair, indicating she has lung problems and was hospitalized in August 1978 at Hospital in Detroit for pneumonia and that she had pneumonia on two subse quent occasions. She denies any physical handicaps, VD, or TB. She stateB he has no mental or emotional problems, however indicates that her mothor was under psychiatric care during the divorce of her parents however is mentally stable now. Subject states the only assets her and her husband have is that of a 1970 Bulck and savings of approximately $50 at National Bank of Detroit." She denies any serious liabilities. 202 Figure 42. Fred R. EVALUATION AND PLAN: ' ! ■ ’ * ■ I ! ' l . ■ - The following are Dosit ive ..farhors concernina this deFendant-’ he was recently employea, is purchaSiny Lis heme, <5v>d reported as requested for his pre-sentence interview. Negative factors include;. extensive criminal record consisting or two feiony and three misdemeanor convictions. Further the defendant is currently unemployed, has experienced an unstable family background, and has failed to complete his high school education. .The prognosis for future adjustment aooears to be Door in view of t he'>d-e£ tnTcTa n t * s extensive criminal record and tne assaultive nature of the within offense. Therefore incarceration is recommended to provide public protection. A suggested plan for institutional authorities is that the defendant should receive alcohol counseling and psychological treatment. 203 tailored to the situation it seeks to describe. It becomes a truncated, oddly skewed report. But Ratliffe welcomes the move away from longer narrative reports because he believes they mean less work for him. Unlike the "old soldiers" and some of the "young professionals" like Irene Ditka, Ratliffe does not consider himself an integral part of the corrections process. He believes that any rhetorical changes in the PSI are of little consequence because "judges don't read them anyway . . . I wonder if judges read them at all . . . it's irrelevant." Ratliffe believes the probation officer is essentially powerless: "You do not feel you have the power to convince the judge . . . we are supposed to have power, but courts don't back us up . . . and the people on the street know we don't . . . the ultimate problem is with the judge." Because he believes the judge does not care about his opinion, he has little sense of a professional ethos. He has, instead, a sense of survival. Whatever new administrators with new philosophies dictate, he will try to do: Individualize the defendant? We're not so much looking at him as an individual. We're trying to protect the public now. That's our ultimate goal. It's not that necessary to individualize them. Judges don't have time to read it. 204 He accomodates to new directives because the new form "has made all our lives easier." The only thing I do is start off with the prior record. The difficult part is [creating evaluations and plans for] the ones who have no 'positive factors.'" The new form appeals to him because it reminds him of "business writing": "this is what they want in business and industry." He is pleased because "we used to write a great deal and now we write very little." Unlike the "old soldiers," Ratliffe is not professionally invested in any form of the PSI because he views the probation officer as a pawn in administrators' and judges' "games." He adapts to accommodate their wishes. Perry Mowbry Mowbry is a medium-to-low skill writer whose PSIs reveal little about the defendant: whether major or minor offender, a threat to the community or a threat to himself. Mowbry adds little detail to any of his PSIs from 1979-83 that would contextualize the crime. In addition, he rarely provides supporting detail in the "Social History" section of the PSI to describe the offender. As a result, his PSI is a short, colorless recitation of facts. The case of Franklin F. illustrates this point (Fig. 43). Mr. F. is unable to stay out of prison. He has amassed eight 205 Figure 43. Franklin F. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION: This defendant is a 30 year old, divorced male, who has no previous juvenile record. However, as an adult, he has been placed on probation three times and has served three separate periods of incarceration at the State Prison Southern Michigan. On July 1979} the defendant was paroled and is scheduled for discharge in July, 1981. The defendant is the product of a semi-stable home environment and the second youngest of four children. He states that he graduated from high.school in January, 1968 and attended Wayne State University for one semester in 1970. At the present time, the defendant is employed as a cook. at the Restaurant in , Michigan. The defendant admits that he has used several types of illegal drugs since 1969 but adamantly denies their present usage. Regarding alcoholic beverages, the defendant states that the consumption of intoxicants may sometimes cause problems but not of any major magnitude. In addition, the defendant states that he is in good physical condition and admits to seeing a therapist since his parole from prison in July, 1979- 206 previous felony convictions, been sentenced four times to the State Prison of Southern Michigan (Jackson) and escaped from Jackson once. His case is rich with factual detail. Despite such information, Mowbry's evaluation achieves little or no rhetorical force, either through Mowbry's choice or arrangement of detail, his inclusion of corroborating comments or evaluative statements. His 1983, post-Stevenson PSIs have the same flat character. The description of Samuel L. (Fig. 44), who has no previous record except the current car theft charge, could just as easily fit the career criminal Franklin F. (Fig. 43). Clearly, his professional ethos is not derived from writing; he stated flatly, "I am not a writer.” Nevertheless, he welcomes changes in the PSI because "it makes the new form shorter, like an assembly line.” Since he never did make judgments or create hypotheses, he says he doesn't "miss them." But he does like the flexibility the job offers and seems unconcerned that "only 10 percent of judges read these things." 207 Figure 44. Samuel L. EVALUATION AND PLAN: This defendant is a 22 year old, single male, who was born and raised in Detroit, MI. He is currently residing with his parents on the Northeast side of Detroit. The defendant has a 12th grade education and he is presently unemployed. However, he is receiving unemployment benefits from his last employer. The defendant denies the usage of all illegal drugs, except for marijuana, which he contends that he consumes occasionally. He also describes himscilf ■ an iiifrequent drinker of alcoholic beverages. In addition, the defendant; maintains that he has never suffered from any physical or mental impairments. Regarding the defendant’s criminal record, he has one misdemeanor conviction for Disorderly Conduct, which dates back to August of 1 9 8 1. After reviewing the defendant's background, it is felt that he could, benefit from supervision in the community for a moderate period of time. 208 Chapter Five The Corrections Administrators Attitudes toward Probation Officers Robert LeCureaux In Chapter Four, I discussed LeCureaux*s role in this * study. As the Detroit-area Director of Probation, he had a significant influence on policy and, subsequently, on personnel attitude in the department. He supported this project by helping to arrange meetings with area managers and by sharing his views on the effects of two major developments on probation officers' attitudes: the economic downturn and the state takeover of the Department of Corrections. When I began this study in 1983, the state was just beginning to pull out of a recession that had forced restrictions on the hiring of probation officers. As a result, there had been no new hires in six years. Probation officers felt additional pressure from the passage of the State Assumption Act, which made probation * LeCureaux is now Director of the State Prison of Northern Michigan at Kinross. 209 officers state employees, thereby creating losses in status, supervisory levels and retirement benefits. Many probation officers, according to LeCureaux, were feeling "detached, robotized." The changes left them "traumatized and angry" because they had had little control over events. For many, the system was perceived as a "negative reinforcer, with few rewards built in, not even the chance for promotion," since affirmative action policies were viewed by many whites as a block to their promotion. Information gathered in interviews with the probation officers in this study reflects this widespread sense of disaffection with and alienation from administrative policies. Marilyn Brownell A thorough professional and seasoned administrator, Marilyn Brownell, MSW, corroborated comments made by LeCureaux and added many rich perspectives of her own to this study. A 40-year veteran of the Department of Corrections and manager of the suburban office in this study, she proved a valuable source of information about the history, policies and personnel in the Corrections Department. As District Manager, she is responsible for the operations of the Felony Probation department in this suburban area, including maintaining the writing standards 210 for the PSI. Deeply loyal to her profession, she reflects her own concerns— as well as those of her staff and other professionals--about developments that seem to be eroding the probation officer's professional ethos, and consequently his/her interest in writing a thorough PSI. Among her concerns is the growing use of plea bargains, which enable lawyers and judges to agree on a lesser charge in exchange for a lesser sentence. Usually the bargain is for probation instead of prison. Plea bargarins can make writing a thorough PSI seem futile since the case has already been decided. I asked Brownell to discuss the factors that influenced the probation officer's attitude toward composing the PSI. MB: I said that there are so many factors because a PO often feels that the defendant, prosecutor and defendant's attorney have already "struck a deal" and, based on correct or incorrect information, the judge already knows that this defendant is going to "get paper" (i.e., get probation). Sometimes you have probationers come in and say, "what is all this jazz? What do you mean, you have to interview me for the PSI? The judge has already said I was going to 'get paper.'" That happens. BH: How often? MB: I'd say 20-25 percent of the time. In other words, the PO says then, "does it really matter what I do?" BH: So they feel like players on the outside of the act? 211! MB: Yes, just going through the motions. And they particularly feel that way if they complete five or six cases a month and recommend incarceration on two of them and then in three weeks the person comes back having been granted probation. What does that do to a PO's feeling of dedication? He or she may believe that no matter how good their PSI is, and no matter what facts he or she presents, a probationary period is going to be granted. They also feel like they are "going through the motions" with victims. The probation officer has enormous feelings of frustration related to victims. Under the law in Michigan, victims have an opportunity to document their financial losses, to express how they feel about the offense, the offender, and the way the crime has impacted their lives emotionally. The probation officer secures this information. When the probation officer interviews victims, they think they are impacting on the sentencing; and yet the probation officer may well know that probation has already been bargained. With this knowledge, it is embarrassing for the probation officer to deal with victims. Brownell has developed a reputation for high standards of performance, but she is concerned about whether she can defend the need for high standards to probation officers who believe no one else cares about their performance level. I asked her whether she believed probation officers’ performance was influenced by what they perceive as widespread disinterest in their level of performance on the PSI. MB: That's right. In other words, they feel that many judges don't read their reports. Then they want to know why we, as supervisors and managers, are being so "picky" about all these details. 212 That sets up a whole conflict between the PO who writes the case and those of us who are trying to meet departmental standards. BH: How do you feel? Do you feel you should maintain these standards even if nobody's reading it? MB: Yes, I feel we should, but if we have recommended incarceration on someone and within six months they have committed a new crime . . . BH: You mean they have been released from prison? MB: They never went. I mean, in other words, we said, "put him in jail," and the judge places the person on probation and six months later, that person has been arrested and convicted of a new crime. Then you feel vindicated, but what good does it do for the community? BH: You can't say, "I told you so" to the judge. MB: No, that's inappropriate. So in many ways the PO is overcome with feelings of powerlessness. They feel their report is routine, is not valued by the court. Brownell was also concerned about the long-range effect of sentence-guidelines on the character of the PSI. MB: I can perceive the time when they're going to say: "how many times have you been in trouble?" and use certain factors [to make a decision]. Have you seen the sentence guideline book? BH: Yes, I've looked at it. MB: Well, if you're going to say, "how many times did you do it?" and go across a grid and say, "this is what you're going to get ..." BH: In other words, it will be a simple equation? MB: That's right. All the square pegs go in square holes. No individual differentiation. BH: Why do you think this is happening? 213 MB: Sentencing guidelines are taking us in this direction. Citizens are so saturated with crime that their response is outrage and they want everybody incarcerated. Because Brownell was trained as a social worker, she shares many of the ideals of the "old soldiers" on her staff, specifically a still-lingering belief in the rehabilitative ideal that has historically placed the needs of individual offenders at the center of the corrections process. But she is a realist as well, one who must continually balance the need to protect the increasingly- threatened local community against her professional and ethical obligation to represent individual offenders as thoroughly as possible in the PSI. She must impress her staff with this professional ethic, while some members of the judiciary and the community send contradictory messages. She tries, in the balance, to be fair to both the community and the defendant, but she is aware and concerned that the writing skill and the investigative ability of the individual writing the PSI can significantly influence the way an individual offender is represented. MB: Again, so much depends upon the dedication and integrity and basic intelligence of that person writing the pre. I mean, it is frightening when you think of the fact that you have this wide variety of professionals writing these pres. I can name names on my own staff. I wouldn’t have to have the name on the report, I could just look at the report and tell you who wrote it. 214 BH: They're that distinctive to you? MB: Oh, yes. BH: Distinctive because of what? MB: In some cases, because of a lack of content, lack of verifiability, lack of fleshing out of details. Other pres are distinctive because they are so thorough. All significant data is there and verified. BH: What are the significant details? MB: I really want to know who this man is, and what is verified about his background. I want to know what his family says about him. I want to know what his adjustment is in the community. What does his mother or father say about him? How is this defendant "acting out" in the community? BH: Will the parents go on record? MB: Oh, yes, if you have a PO that will go into the house and say, "I'm here for the PSI, tell me about Charlie Brown." But someone else who just knocks on the door and says, "I'm here to verify that Charlie Brown is your son and he lives here." You're not going to get much. Again, the individual difference of interviewing technique and level of interest. They’ve missed the essence of the person; they haven't verified anything. Brownell was additionally concerned that low-skill probation officers had interpreted the effort to eliminate redundancy in the PSI— a primary goal of the redesign process--as a subtle mandate to reduce the scope of their investigation. 215 MB: [Low skill writers] don't only skimp on their writing, they skimp on their investigation. I could show you a case, one that I saw. I read a two-page memorandum [from a judge] saying "this isn't here, this isn't here . . . this." I would be happy to share that with you . . . I know what your specialty is— writing— but you can't separate writing from what they do with their investigative skills, their ability to deduce, analyze and connect. Brownell believes the impetus for document design stems largely from bureaucratic needs. MB: My understanding was that the document was redesigned to eliminate redundancy, to strip away all but the essential elements. It was also designed to cut typing time, to do more with less. BH: Was that money-saving? MB: In part . . . the typist, instead of typing nine pages of pre, is typing four pages. BH: That is significant. MB: Oh, yes, it's a significant bureaucratic savings, not only in typing time but also in writing and reading time. A confirmed humanist, Brownell finds it difficult to compress the offender's salient history into the confines of the new form. She finds the new form and the accompanying dictator's guide (Appendix D) "confusing." BH: "Confusing" because you don't know where to put things? MB: Because I'm trying to put my person in Dwight's box and my people don’t fit into Dwight's boxes, OK? BH: OK. 216 MB: So I never did like the Dictator's guide, but it's sort of become our gospel. BH: How much do you think they're [POs] adhering to the guidelines? MB: Not much. In fact, if I polled our POs, I think you'd find less than 25 percent are following Dwight's gospel. In an effort to maintain old standards as well as adhere to new guidelines, a "hybrid" is often created which is neither the old style or the new style. BH: In terms of the style of writing? MB: Yes, in terms of the style, but I don't frankly think that his training impacted very much at all on what we're doing . . . [probation officers] will do what they think they can get away with or do whatever they think needs to be done. . . and if they're being honest [will say that] they are going to tailor their stuff to the judge that's going to read it. BH: In other words, if a judge is perceived as one who never imposes prison, they're not going to recommend prison? MB: They'll recommend it, but their heart won't be in it, because they know they won't get the prison time. MB: That's right. If they judge doesn't care, why should I care BH: There must be some who rise above that. MB: Oh, yes, there are many. The Role of Administrators ^ Supervisors I spoke with many supervisors in the course of this study, all talented, committed professionals who are 217 responsible for maintaining the level of work among the probation officers assigned to them. They, in turn, report to the manager of their district office and often take their management cues from him/her. While all supervisors are former probation officers, few of the probation officers I spoke to displayed any interest in achieving this promotion because it represents a move to management involving more responsibility for only a moderate increase in salary and a subsequent loss of union protection. Once a supervisor, many remain in this position until retirement because there are few manager slots available in the system and even fewer slots above that. Many supervisors are sophisticated judges of people and situations, an expertise acquired from years of being positioned between state administrators and local probation officers. Because most have histories going back 20 years or more in the corrections system, they share many of the same attitudes toward current changes. Since their comments often overlap, I have chosen one, Carroll Wilkins (name changed), to represent the opinions of the others. Wilkins, like the other supervisors, was concerned about shifts in probation officers’ attitudes, which have been brought about by changes in the social, economic and philosophic context in which they work. We spoke about the 218 widespread impression that probation officers are "demoralized" about conditions they cannot change. I asked him how this emotion affected their work. CW: I think the way it is generally reflected in the writing is it gets skimpy— just bare facts, bare facts, no feeling. [the probation officer says to me] "I didn’t discuss this with the parent; what’s the point of talking with the mother— he doesn't live there anyway.” I said: "what if the judge wants to know about what kind of support they have out there?" Well, they don't care anyway. It's old judge so and so. That kind of thing. Then you get the other end of the thing where you have POs saying, "I can't find my people jobs. I can't do this. Why can't they have programs for this?" And you say, "well, the state is subsidizing program A, program B, program C." A lot of frustration is the result of things they [probation officers] cannot control. We can't control the job market; it's a depressed area, especially when you have clients that are uneducated, undereducated, underemployed, unemployable. Then their criminal history comes back. They say, "I can't get that job because I have a criminal record." Like Marilyn Brownell, Wilkins believes that some probation officers stint on their investigations, producing, as a result, PSIs that contain inadequate information for sentencing, for placement in prisons and for the protection of other probation officers. CW: If you've ever been in the other end of this system and you see some of the PSIs that you get, you can know right off, I appreciate this one [PSI]. When I was in the field and I used to get the presentence [report] with the pre-parole investigation and I would read through the pre and go to the house. Well, that pre might not have told me [that] there is a screaming meemie in the living room or that there are two German 219 Shepherd dogs that attack you at the door. The kinds of things like "this person's family is booking numbers in the home/" or, you know, the kinds of things that could impinge on this person's behavior that are going on in that home. So if that kind of information is not available, somewhere down the road, it can be missed. It can be devastating to the person who is not only trying to classify based on that PSI . . . If you went out to reception-guidance at Jackson [Prison] and saw how they use the presentence reports to classify a person, and [then] look at some of what they don't have . . . do you know what I'm saying? BH: Yes, I do. CW: So I would rather have a narrative that tells of family history and long-term behavior, than not to see it at all. All the way down the line, you can get these reports and get a bunch of shit. They don't tell you anything. BH: You're saying that it could be dangerous down the line for somebody not to know some of this? CW: That's right. In the following exchange, Wilkins explains why a certain piece of information that might be considered irrelevant under current guidelines can be richly illustrative and serve to better contextualize the defendant's life. CW: . . . If I go into a home, I want to know if there is a retarded brother. [According to the new guidelines] you can say he has a brother A, brother B and brother C in the parental home. But I want to know if brother C is mentally retarded or mentally deranged. Or if the mother is deranged. 220 BH: Let me play devil's advocate. If I'm a judge and read the fact that he has a retarded brother, what does that have to do with his being a criminal? CW: A retarded family can also impinge on a defendant and how he acts. Is he in the home? Not in the home? Does he [the defendant] have any responsibility? Do the parents expect him to take care of him? Those kinds of things. What kinds of ways does he interact with other family members. Does he say himself that he gets along with everyone all right, but you go out there to the house and the mother or brother says "keep the dirty s.o.b. away from here? I think it all fits together. Despite his concern about low skill writers, he believes that "the ones [probation officers] who take pride and care about their message getting across are going to try and use whatever means available to them to give the court complete information. I kind of like that." Wilkins believes that skilled probation officers can use the new form well if they make an effort. They can include their own judgments if they know how to express them reasonably and fairly. CW: They do it within the framework that they are allowed to . . . I tell them they can talk about "patterns of behavior." If one person has five arrests for B & E [breaking and entering] and that is a part of his criminal history, you can certainly draw that into a conclusion. "This person has established a pattern of robbery, thievery, stealing, however you want to say that. "By his past five arrests for B & E . . . which makes him a threat to the community." Something like that. 221 Wilkins asserts that he would support future changes in the PSI, but he is concerned that those changes might further reduce the meaningful content of the PSI, resulting in even less descriptive evaluation and plan sections. CW: I think as long as we're in the people business we have to deal with people as people. He may be the biggest ____ on the east side, but he is a person and he has roots somewhere and he has contacts and a support system somewhere. What kind of program would be best for him? If we're going to maintain a prison system, then let's talk about what we're doing for a minute. Is it going to be just detention? Then, fine, just give us the boxes. But if you want to go through the rigmarole of having educational programs, job training programs, rehabilitation, then let's talk about what people fit where. BH: Is rehabilitation a serious goal? CW: We're really warehousing people. Giving them labels and stigmas. That is a different way of disenfranchising people. Give them a label: "retarded," "criminal," those kinds of things. You put the people in the boxes and then shove the boxes over in the corner. BH: Do you think society is still interested in rehabilitation? CW: No. Law and order took over. Urban crime is at the fore of everyone's thoughts. Just recently at this legislative conference on urban crime in Detroit [people were questioning] why we should give all this money . . . So, no, it's not about rehabilitation; it's about extinguishing people. "Let's get back capital punishment, let's execute them. Fry them, throw them away. Let's put a wall around Detroit." Wilkins later drew a parallel between the subjects of the PSI and writers of that document when I asked him whether the probation officer could draw pictures of individuals in the PSI. 222 CW: As the writer* I can make him [the defendant] appear if I want him to . . . They say as the authorizing agent we have the right to change anything we want to [as supervisors]. But I don’t want to get into that. How do you motivate people when they are nothing but little boxes themselves. If you only want them to deal with forms and procedures, make it cut and dried. I try to get them to feel something about what they are doing. BH: Do they ever come back to you and say, ” I know you want that in the pre but it [new form] doesn’t really ask for that." CW: They do. BH: What if they say, "you're asking me to do more than what it requires and, frankly, I don’t feel like it." CW: That’s fine. But obviously, my opinion will prevail. But my main interest is to help them reach that point where they care about doing it . . . I think most people try to do a good job . . . if they didn't they wouldn’t be doing it. So everyone is going to meet their minimum standard. We're talking about how we can get them to go a little above. 223 Chapter Six The Judge as Audience Judges, lawyers, probation officers, supervisors and court administrators comprise a legal community that, like other communities, continually reconstitutes itself. As James White states in "The Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law": This means that the process of law is at once creative and educative . . . the identity of the speakers and their wants are in perpetual transformation . . . if this is right the law cannot be a technique, as the bureaucratic model assumes, by which "we" get what we "want," for both "we" and our "wants" are constantly remade in the rhetorical process (691). The presentence investigation (PSI), the only description of the defendant presented to the judge during legal proceedings, is a fundamental part of this rhetorical process. Since so many defendants plead guilty and therefore forego trial, "reports often substitute for the trial itself" and provide a mechanism through which facts are found in a criminal case. The PSI often provides the sentencing judge with the only knowledge of the offense and the defendant other than the minimal facts necessary for acceptance of the guilty plea (Fennell 1627). 224 Most judges, then, evaluate the PSI according to the accuracy and detail of the facts it contains. As a typical reader, the judge will make inferences about the subject of the discourse, but the more limited the number of facts within the discourse and the more general the level of these facts, the more likely the judge will draw only a rudimentary, and potentially erroneous, picture of the defendant's history. By providing accurate and thorough reporting about the defendant, the probation officer helps diminish the possibility that the judge as "creative reader" may infer erroneous information about the defendant from the PSI (Monaco and Harris 371). Probation officers can also aid in creating a picture of the defendant by the style and structure of the discourse they create (see Chapter Six). In The Realm of Rhetoric, Chaim Perelman argues that "facts," no matter how limited in number, "require, beyond their being given, a manner of description and interpretation as well" (41). Yet some judges are disturbed by the constructivist nature of the PSI, through which "truths" about the defendant are adduced, because they do not believe that all probation officers interpret the "facts" fairly. Judge Adams, for example, is deeply concerned about the potential for a "racist" or "class-linked" 225 interpretation of "facts" by white officers who do not live in the inner city and, consequently, may not understand the reality of life there. In his interview, he offered an example of what he considers an insidious misreading of "facts." Many Black males in Detroit remain unemployed because the number of factories and businesses in the metropolitan area has been shrinking. Judge Adams believes, therefore, that a poor job record should be read as a fact of life in Detroit, not as a character flaw, an interpretation he believes common to many white middle- class probation officers. According to Adams, middle-class officers are contextualized so differently from their subjects that they cannot create a fair picture of the defendant. Adams believes very strongly that the PSI should be a document stripped of "interpretation" by the probation officer, one that avoids "sociology" and allows the judge to draw his own inferences from the facts before * him. Interviews with other judges--black and white, male and female— indicate that there is little unanimity on * Probation officers are aware of Judge Adams' attitudes. His name came up in almost every interview as a judge who reputedly did not read the PSI and reputedly ignored the recommendation for incarceration, preferring to put most offenders on probation. 226 this issue of interpretation of facts. This interpretative community is divided on other subjects as well: the role of the probation officer in the sentencing process and the importance of this role; the significance of the form of the PSI. However, there is unanimity on other subjects, i.e., the importance of certain facts in the sentencing process, particularly the prior record of the defendant (Carter, 1967; AuPerrier, 1976). Most judges assert that knowledge about a prior record enables them to make the yes-no decision between imprisonment and probation. They generally utilize the remaining information about the defendant’s social, drug, educational and employment history, to tailor the prison sentence or term of probation to the individual offender. Most judges also believe they act as the conscience of the community, but they acknowledge there is no community consensus or any one single interpretation of events. Unanimity in the interpretive community has been shattered by the sheer number of crimes in Detroit, the increasing severity of those crimes (where a child is more likely to be killed by a bullet than hit by a car), and the acute shortage of prison space. Everyone in the legal community has felt the effect of these multiplied pressures. 227 These social conditions set the scene for modifications to the PSI, a document that incorporates a "strategic" and "stylized answer" to questions posed by the engendering situation: "How can the corrections department process greater number of defendants?" and "How can fairness in sentencing by guaranteed to everyone among a large number of defendants?" The judges who were interviewed had favored "streamlining" the PSI as a strategy that would enable them to more quickly process the growing number of offenders, but not all judges are completely happy with the results of this document redesign. The following interviews are summaries of one and two-hour sessions with Judges Adams, Stokes, Carlucci, and Greenspan (pseudonyms), representative members of Recorder's Court in Detroit. Judge Fredrick Adams Judge Adams is very concerned about the issue of fairness in including certain "bits" of information in the PSI. JA: Now, to say that the defendant has a job and a stable family is relevant if the defendant is going to get an "out" [probation] sentence. But it isn't as if the defendant is going to get an "in" sentence [prison]. From my point of view, I think it is unfortunate if you put it in the PSI report and I see it up front. I think that it is unfortunate because then it tends to make us put people "in" because they don't have a job or a 228 stable family. What we tried to do in the development of guidelines was to eliminate in the sentencing process those matters over which the defendant was not likely to have much control. And so the defendant can't control that he doesn't have a job because he lives in Detroit. We thought we should consider that. Adams discusses the new format in terms of the "in- out" decision. JA: Until the time the "in or out" decision is made, I'm not interested in "strengths or weaknesses." I'm only interested in what did he do and what his prior record was . . . Taken in conjunction with the guidelines, recommendation, that is about all I need. On the other hand, if I'm going to put him on probation then I need all that "sociology," I need to know whether or not he has a substance abuse problem, because if he does then I think probation ought to treat it. The format we have mixes data for us that we might need for two different portions of the sentencing process. BH: In your ideal world would you have two different types [of PSI]? JA: In the ideal world, I would really have two presentence reports, one to make the "in/out" decision and length; the other report I would examine once I decided on "out." BH: What would constitute a "good" pre in your mind for those? JA: . . . I think that the format that we worked out here in Wayne County is as good a format as we could get that I've seen anywhere. I think what we have done here is to, first of all, summarize the information on the face sheet, so the judge doesn't have to look at "all that sociology" if he doesn't want to . . . I don't know the way to improve it much. 229 Adams, unlike other judges, does not believe the form of the PSI "matters much." JA: Oh, I know that I have been looking at strengths/weaknesses language, but I saw it as a matter of style, and I would never have seen it as a matter of. significant substantive change . . . I would have seen no difference in that and the narrative form. As far as Adams in concerned, "substantive" changes to the document would involve deleting items now included, like the information on substance abuse or the probation officer's recommendation for sentencing. No other judge in the sample group suggested that the probation officers' recommendation be deleted. When I questioned Adams further about this significant issue, he seemed to modify his position slightly, by saying, "I think the legislative mandate, giving POs the prerogative to make sentence recommendations, makes sense and I wouldn't want that to be changed." Form matters so little to Judge Adams that he was not aware that change to the document happened "by design." Adams is more concerned about the limits of the probation officers' role in the creation of the PSI. I asked his opinion of the probation officer's judgment in the PSI, offering the example of a probation officer confronted by a defendant whom he believes to be a drug dealer because of 230 the defendant's expensive style of living, his associates and the fact that he has no visible means of support. JA: People gather inferences about other people based on less than always provable facts all the time. The more factual support the presentence report gives for the hypothesis, the more reasonable it is to put it in. I would tend to say, "don't put it in; just give me the facts and let me draw it [the conclusion]." If the conclusion that the defendant is a big drug dealer is based on the fact that he has no visible means of support, there are known drug addicts hanging around, and he's driving a Mercedes automobile and that he's been a target of police surveillance for years . . . if you put all that in then I think that it is reasonable for me to draw the hypothesis. If you are not willing to put those factors in, largely because they may not exist, then I think it is unfortunate that the presentence report may depend too much on the defendant rubbing the PO the wrong way. And I think that is not a good way to run a railroad. I for one prefer the facts rather than the hypothesis, and I applaud the change. BH: Do you think this change helps prevent racial interpretations of events? JA: No. Well, I think there may be some racial interpretations but I think the problem isn't strictly one of race. First of all, I think that racial sentencing, that the problem of class may be more important. I think that poor people generally get tougher sentences than more middle- class people. BH: I think that is true. ' JA: But I think the sentencing ought to be based upon articulable facts, and not based on intuition . . . I think the problem with the hypothesis is that it avoids the necessity to articulate the facts upon which it is based. And sometimes it substitutes for the facts that aren't there . . . That's what is scary. It is that the hypothesis 231 may be somebody else's hypothesis being repeated as fact. For Adams, then, the probation officer's role is that of a "fact-finder," albeit an "important fact-finder,” whose recommendation is only as good as the quality of his facts. I asked Judge Adams whether he believed the probation officer was also a "fact-weaver." JA: I don’t need that, so I can't be sure what others might need. I don't care if he says "he has two prior convictions as a substance abuser," or if he says "he is a substance abuser with two prior convictions. . . . Because we are not dealing with a science, I would not deny the POs their creative role to weave and present the facts and factors, but at some point in the process we have to have something of sufficient objectivity to help us make a decision, so that we can think that we are sentencing each person alike. And I think that we get that by a pure factual presentation stripped of certain things . . . as long as we have at least one objective basis for making the sentence. I think that we were struggling to get there with a more objective, less subjective report format, as the report evolved from the early eighties to the mid-eighties, which is the period in which you're interested. In his efforts to have probation officers and judges adhere to strict sentencing guidelines, Adams is an idealist who is trying to build consensus within the legal interpretative community about the "facts" that should "count" in sentencing. But he is also a realist who believes that, without strict rules and guidelines, interpretations may creep into probation officers' reports 232 that bias the document and set the scene for unfair sentencing. In his concern for fairness, he wants probation officers to use a "neutral vocabulary," one that is "free of emotional weightings" (Burke, Philosophy 138). JA: I think that it is important that every judge speak the same language as the probation officers. I think that the only way to avoid unfair sentences, which translates into sentences which are unreasonable, is for us to develop some universal language about what we mean. And that translates, as far as I'm concerned, into a set of reasonable standards. Even if we consider things about the defendant that are beyond his past criminal history, even if we do that, we at least ought to agree on what they are and what is important. If we have to say whether or not it is important that the defendant has got a job, then we ought at least to agree that that is appropriate and not have one pre that talks about his job and another that talks about his 20 grandchildren that love him a lot. The point is, I can live in a world where we evaluate jobs, so long as we realize that that is what we are doing. Then we factor in whether or not there are any jobs out there at all . . . I . think that as a minimum we have to agree on certain standards. Lenore Stokes Lenore Stokes is the philosophical opposite of Judge Adams. While Adams would root out much inference and "unimportant" detail in the PSI in an attempt to more fairly depict the defendant, Stokes welcomes the "heaping 233 up of . . . emotional facts," described by Kenneth Burke in the Philosophy of Literary Form; JS: I despise reports that are kind of antiseptic. I like to have all people in the area, particularly of human endeavors, give an opinion . . . some people are too young to recognize the value of their intuitive responses . . . it's just the older you get the more you can articulate them, the more you can rely on them." . . . I don't expect to have a probation report without any opinion. Now, it's dangerous if you say he is a so-and-so . . . unless you have some reference point, but if you can document, I can't think of any reason why a PO should not have an opinion. I don't know if everyone feels that way, but that is the way I feel. BH: Do you think they feel qualified to do that? The POs? JS: . . . If people keep telling you that you can't do it, pretty soon you don't even bother thinking about it. But if people encourage you to do it, and monitor what you're doing, I think people can do it comfortably. Of course, they are qualified. You're qualified. I can pick any person [pointing outside]--that man in the parking lot is qualified, because he has lived a certain amount of time, he's had a certain amount of experience. We're not talking about any great mysteries of life. BH: Coming back to that expression you used last summer, "trained intuition." [You said] that POs have trained intuitions about people. But I've talked to a lot of them, and they appear very demoralized. They feel the state does not want them to say anything like that, that their trained intuitions are worthless to the state and only the judges intuitions "count." They believe they have to efface themselves in the document [and] they say "I just put out the facts; it's just a list more or less." 234 JS: That's the way it comes to me and I don't appreciate it. See, I think about one thing, when you talk about intuition . . . it's not helpful for a judge to exercise his sole intuitive sense. For one thing we're not close enough to the people. We don't know them; we don't examine other people in connection with them, so there are a lot of people [judges] who don't rely on the intuitive sense, or who don't have a highly developed intuitive sense. They need the POs. . . . it [PSI] keeps you in rein and it keeps you going out of rein. You [the judge] may be over here someplace and someone says, "it is my opinion" . . . most people will stop and say "let me consider this." I don't think judges are supposed to be budding robots, and I don't think the judges feel that way either. Judge Stokes clearly believes that "truth" is arrived at communally, in court and out of court, because members of society, despite differences in class and race, are contextualized similarly. For her, "intuition" is human and discovering "truth" a cooperative venture. She looks for the human in the PSI and, unlike Judge Adams, is disturbed when she does not find it. JS: I don't have the feeling about the reports that the POs have put their whole selves into it. I think they just say I'll take plan A, B, or C. I don't have the sense of dedication or the sense of being committed . . . I think it's due to the fact that it's more important to be utilitarian . . . just hurry up and get it done and get it done according to a formula . . . turn it over to the boss, and it's his problem. . . . I miss that element of commitment that's no longer in the PO's report. I end up with reports and I keep turning them back [sending them back to be rewritten] because I don't like them. They 235 don't mean anything to me because they lack that vitality. BH: Where would that vitality come from? JS: In the way the probation officer writes the report. It's a formula now [that] doesn't have any spirit. I.used to get the PO saying something about their [the defendant's] mother, something about their [school] counselor . . . there were a lot of ways. I can't tell you precisely, but I knew who wrote it. I began to know style, and by substance I could tell if it was a good PO. Judges Stokes trusts the sound of many voices offering many perspectives in the PSI because in those voices "you find the thread of truth." While Judge Adams seeks a "neutral" vocabulary and a single perspective, Judge Stokes intuitively understands what Burke has called the "moral aspect of poetic meaning," through which the reader attempts to "attain a full moral act by attaining a perspective atop all the conflicts of attitude" [author's emphasis] (Philosophy 148). I asked Judge Stokes why she believed changes had taken place in the form and content of the PSI. JS: As to why, I think people love this automation. Everything became machines. Automation has out distanced our ability physically, emotionally and mentally to keep step . . . But I don't think our psyches can keep up with this business of automation. You can get a lot [out] of statistics, but you can't get a feel out of a computer yet. I think we've cut out the best part of being human . . .We are aiding the computer instead of teaching the computer to aid 236 humans . . . maybe it's missing the sweet part of the human mind. Judge Stokes does not believe the new form is a "bad form," but she believes that greater accessibility ("you can go right here and find out about education") leads to greater "automation" of the report. Just as a human life cannot be divided into sub-headings, neither she believes, should the PSI be arranged as a set of compartments: "You cannot divide it into parts and have that human element in there." She elaborates on this theme: JS: The purpose of that form is to take out the human element. Who can weave all those pieces together? You can't do it. They're all isolated. There isn't anyone you can break up into job, education, mother, etc. Judge Stokes is concerned about the loss of narrative in the reports; she is equally concerned about the level of "burnout" among probation officers. JS: I never heard about "burnout" until 1977 when they started jamming people through here. Everybody started taking guilty pleas and making, promises about sentences [so that] probation officers were left with a load of people that did not, could not. . . it was a matter of supervision . . . that's when I started hearing about "burnout Because improper people were placed on probation. Reports [PSIs] were ignored? deals were made. The other judges who were interviewed knew of Judge Stokes' attitude toward the changes in the PSI. Except for Adams, all concurred with her philosophy of sentencing; 237 however, most believed that her philosophy of "full consideration" for the defendant was a luxury afforded her because she hears fewer cases than they do, a result of differently apportioned responsibilities on the court. Judge John Carlucci Judge Carlucci describes the PSI as "basically informational." He likes the new form because it enables him to "get to the substance of a report quickly." The old form, that included narrative, posed some problems for him as reader "because in the narrative of the old form you could get lost with everything jammed together." But he fine. the new form, with its "strengths/weaknesses" format occasionally "humorous." JC: You will see reports like: "The defendant's positive strengths are: he has a loving mother; he was employed three years ago for three months. On the other hand his negative strengths are: this is his fourteenth conviction, and he appears to be headed in the direction of habitual criminality." You almost get the feeling that the writer is forced to say almost anything to fill that spot. So I guess you could argue that is a drawback to that kind of form. But I guess that is not a serious drawback. I think it helps the interviewer to find something good about the person. The bad is obvious, that is clear. Judge Carlucci clearly respects the work of many probation officers and values their perspectives, sometimes 238 even taking the time to commend probation officers for "good work." I asked him why he considered certain work "good"; he responded with an example he had just received. JC: [It was good] because it was so "in depth." And he had not just said the defendant had been treated over the last ten years at the Veterans Administration; he went and got those records and reviewed them in the report. Now that's a good PO. Not someone who is just willing to say he "was treated," who the doctor was and how often he goes. That kind of thing is independent of the form. That is the individual. It's like any business. You have some good POs; some are not so good, not as experienced. Generally the quality is good and some are really superior. For Carlucci, the probation officer is an integral part of the legal community, a person whose professional "ethos" can have significant bearing on the outcome of the sentencing process. When I asked Carlucci if he considered the PSI a persuasive document, he tied the power of the PSI to the ethos of the probation officer. BH: Do you ever view these as persuasive documents? JC: Oh, often. And often depending on who does thenK I have been here for almost __ years, and it is strange in the sense that there are individuals whom I have never met, yet the names are very familiar. You tend to trust their judgments more than others . . . BH: Do you every call up a PO and say, "I've read this report and I have a question?" JC: Oh, yes. Not often, but I will do it . . . There is a heavy burden on the POs and court aids in terms of complying with the law and what can be included within the reports. There is a whole 239 set of guidelines . . . it is paper inundating all of us. PO reports on the balance of cases are very, very important, and the better the report, the more important it becomes. * * * * * BH: So how would you define the relationship between the judge and the PO? JC: I don’t know if I can define it as such. It's just that the better the report, the greater reliance on close cases. BH: Do you see them as an adjunct to your work? JC: Oh, an essential adjunct to my work, because the whole concept of justice and the proper administration of justice is in terms of having accurate facts and knowledge about people, the victims and the defendants. If you have inaccurate or false information in the system, how can you possibly render justice? That is why the reports are very, very important, because they help create impressions in the judges' minds, or help dispel impressions the judges shouldn't have in their minds. And if they are based on inaccurate information as a result of sloppy work, that is dangerous. Accuracy and depth of reporting in the PSI are far more important to Carlucci than the probation officer's judgments about the defendant: "Leave it to the judge; that is what the judge is there for, to make that decision, whether right or wrong. The important thing is to get accurate facts; that is of paramount importance." But Carlucci is dismayed by current trends in corrections in Michigan that have limited judges' 240 discretion in sentencing: "the whole guidelines business . . . you've got to give reasons if you want to go outside and get a drink." He ties the role of the judge to that of the probation officer; diminution of the power of the former automatically diminishes the power of the latter: "Why bother with really going into someone's background, character, and nature if you're minimizing judicial discretion anyway?" He is disturbed by a trend toward "box-checking" in the PSI, especially in sentencing guidelines. JC: In the box system a "drug user" means nothing to me. Does that mean the person has been using for six months and is only an occasional user, or is he a "doper," using for 15 years, or did he start using in Vietnam? You could go on and on. Does that mean the box is going to have four sub categories? I don't like that. It's obviously convenient and easier . . . I don't want to see that. To take the human element out of the system is very distressing to me. I sentenced a fellow today, the one I told you was 42 [as I said] "you've got to take into account the look on a guy's face." Judge Stokes . . . I don't know if you've talked to her [see previous interview] . . . she made that comment to a reporter about the guidelines. She hates the guidelines. Lenore and I have been friends for 15 years. I love the woman, and she has the reputation, in some instances deserving, of being very tough. I think some reporter asked her during all the guidelines business when they first came out, and she made a comment about the guidelines not doing anything when you're looking at someone and see the look in his eyes. 241 I know that does not sound like a rational approach, but I know what she is talking about. This man had a look that said to me intuitively— I could be wrong--that he was ready to go into this [drug] program now. Where are you going to check a box for that? That's the human aspect. That's why we have an individualized system of imposing sentences. And the movement is to get away from that. Judge Richard Greenspan Like Judge Stokes, Judge Greenspan is concerned that changes in the form of the PSI have altered the nature of the discourse in the report and have adversely affected the writers as well. JG: . . . If you had asked me to give you my gut reaction on how pres compare with how they used to be, I would say that the most pronounced feeling I have about them would be that the POs have been licensed to do them very mechanistically, to not be very thorough and just slap something together to meet some bare minimum requirements. They will often leave me dissatisfied with the final product. That used to happen before but it clearly happens more frequently now and the new form . . . licenses the PO to do a much less thorough job and I'm not happy with that. To the extent that it screens out some of the conjecture, I'm not unhappy with that, that's not what I'm talking about. But I get reports that are totally inadequate. They don't begin to examine anything other than a riddle-form check-off sheet. If someone [described in the PSI] worked somewhere for a long time and is now out of work, there won't be any inquiry as to what happened or why. The obvious questions that one would have when trying to gain insight into the person too often are not asked. I don't think it is form over substance necessarily, but when the 242 department tells you "this is all you need," they're transmitting additional messages as well. And all this is reinforced, I'm sure, by excessive caseloads and the number of pres they have to do. I guess there are some people who do one or more a day and that is just ludicrous. There is no way in hell someone can do the correct job that way. Greenspan is deeply concerned because, unlike Judge Adams, he considers the PSI a persuasive document that is "extremely important" to the sentencing process. JG: You can't count on the defendant very often to speak on his or her own behalf in any meaningful way . . . What is more important in sentencing? The answer is "very little"; you can add to that, "what does the judge really have when he/she passes sentence;" you have the pre . . . awfully important Like Judges Stokes and Carlucci, Greenspan is concerned about the fact that "everything is designed to be programmed today," including sentencing, a fact that renders the PSI even more important. Without a document that describes, rather than labels the defendant, the system could become completely mechanized resulting in negative consequences for the doing of justice in the U.S. JG: That reinforces the no-think, no-feel anything doctrine, and it's only the pre that will blow the whistle and say, "wait a minute." Following the robot doesn't make sense in this case. One side or the other is going to get screwed. So the pre is the pivotal document in most sentences, and unless it transmits some meaningful information to a thinking or feeling jurist, we might as well hang it up and do it by mechanical procedures. 243 BH: Is that the decline of individuation? JG: Absolutely. BH: Do you see that happening? JG: It’s happened . . . In his interview, Judge Greenspan, like other judges, told stories of cases demonstrating how truth is arrived at communally in the judicial system. In one case, Greenspan described a situation in which his opinion of the defendant (a convicted rapist) was at odds with the probation officer's opinion which was at odds with the defense lawyer's point of view. Greenspan finally accepted the probation officer's version, because "I knew the author of the report; he's a veteran (PO) and he is very good." The probation officer's view took precedence, because Greenspan felt he had not spent enough time with the defendant to develop his instincts about him; the probation officer, on the other hand, had spent hours with the defendant, and was known as an astute judge of character. JG: . . . It's a very complex mix. And unless you have a staff directive from the top that says "we want quality work" and not just mass production, you've got to do the kind of work you would want done for you [if you were a member of the public who had been arrested and convicted], or if you are a judge who needs this information. But there isn’t that sort of pride throughout the department and it isn't surprising. There isn't much in many places at all. 244 Like Judge Carlucci, Greenspan is not troubled very much by the "strengths/weaknesses" format except to say that it occasionally becomes "absurd" and "real stupid in its application," but, overall, for Greenspan, the strengths/weaknesses format "signals things and make it easier to follow things later on." Greenspan knows the reputations of many probation officers but finds that as a result of decentralization of offices, many are now "faceless people" to him, even though at one time "I knew the department, everyone was in this building. Now, I don't know the department nearly as well. I don't see many of the people writing the PSIs, and I never see them or talk to them." The judges' attitudes toward document design fall across a spectrum that is anchored at one end by what Kenneth Burke has called "the poetic ideal" of language and at the other by Burke's "semantic ideal" (Philosophy) represented by Judges Stokes and Adams respectively. Judges Carlucci and Greenspan fall into the "margin of overlap." Judge Stokes trusts that judges, lawyers and probation officers can and do "construct" truth about the defendant through their written and verbal interaction with each other. She would restore the interpretive enterprise 245 "to its proper moralistic basis" (Burke, Philosophy 146) by allowing the probation officer to identify those "certain things to look out for." In this process, the offender would retain his individuality and confront his accountability. The full measure of the man would be taken, thereby allowing the determination of a just punishment. Stokes, who is well known in Detroit for meting out the maximum sentence, relates the philosophy of individuation to the responsibility for protecting the community from dangerous offenders. Differentiating the offender from other offenders in personality, character, sociocultural background--a process that is facilitated through the composition of the PSI— enables the judge to more accurately predict the offender's "particular potentialities for reform or recidivism" and thereby offer greater protection to the community (Gleuck 376). Judge Adams, at the other end of the spectrum, appears to distrust the attitudes and observations of probation officers, preferring to form judgments himself from "facts" that are stripped of "sociology." In other words, he wishes to "cut away, to abstract [author's emphasis], all emotional factors that "complicate the objective clarity of meaning" (Burke, Philosophy 148). Document redesign has facilitated this process by stripping out extraneous detail 246 and. tacitly delimiting the role of the probation officer in the "construction" of truth. By trying to assure that no "attitude" creeps into the report, Adams hopes to move closer to his goal of greater fairness to defendants and greater efficiency in sentencing. Judges Carlucci and Greenspan have mixed feelings about document redesign. Each appreciates the new "face sheet" that provides instant access to salient facts about the defendant's legal history, but each finds the the total report in some ways lacking. Greenspan, for example, feels that the new form "licenses the probation officer" to do them "mechanistically;" Carlucci is dismayed at the trend to "take the human element out of the system." Judges Carlucci, Greenspan, and Stokes acknowledge the role of tacit, shared knowledge in the creation of a sentence. Like the great American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, they recognize that: A decision is the unconscious result of instinctive prejudices and inarticulate connections [and] even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men have a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed (Common Law 35). 247 Chapter Seven Findings, Conclusions and Implications This research study was divided into two parts. The first part examines the writing produced by a representative sample of Detroit probation officers in the "Evaluation and Plan" of the presentence investigation (PSI) over a six-year period. During this period the state modified the form and, in part, the content of the Evaluation and Plan section. I chose to examine this section because it is "generally considered the most influential section of the PSI" (Gabor and Jaywardene 23). In addition, this section has undergone more substantive redesign than the other background sections of the PSI, with longer narratives about the defendant replaced by shorter, three-paragraph summations of the defendant's "strengths and weaknesses" and "prognosis for the future." Probation officers underwent training designed to teach them how to make this rhetorical transition. During these training sessions, the probation officers also received instruction about ways to avoid making unsupported generalizations in the report that might lead to lawsuits against the state. In this first phase of the study, I 248 considered whether probation officers had in fact utilized the training provided to them, by examining sample PSIs from pre- and post-training periods. In addition I evaluated the sample PSIs to determine whether state- sponsored changes had been effected, i.e., whether probation officers were eliminating unsupported generalizations and unsubstantiated judgments. In the second part of this inquiry, I conducted interviews with the sample group of probation officers to consider the effects of these changes on the writers' attitudes. I attempted to determine whether the writer- sponsored reasons for modifying the document, including the promise of accelerating the composing process by shortening the length and content of the report, had modified probation officers' perceptions of the purpose and significance of the PSI. In addition, I conducted interviews with a representative sample of judges to determine whether reader-sponsored goals— greater readability and accessibility--had been achieved in the process of document design. 249 Results Categories of Evaluation The sample group of probation officers was divided into three groups according to length of service and writing ability, two variables that I hypothesized might affect attitude and performance on the PSI. The "old soldiers" are long-time members of the Corrections Department and generally high-skill writers, whose tenure began when the "rehabilitative ideal" dominated corrections philosophy and practice. The "young professionals" have served 8-15 years in the department and range in ability from high to low-skill writers. Because these probation officers were hired during a period that witnessed the decline of the "rehabilitative ideal," they exhibit far less interest in this philosophy than the "old soldiers." The third group, the "disaffected probation officers," include generally low- skill writers who have served 8-10 years in the department. A lack of motivation as well as limited skills affect their performance and attitudes. The Old Soldiers--Writing Performance Prior to training, three of the four "old soldiers" were writing lengthy narratives that include a high level 250 of detail about the defendant's educational, marital, work and drug history while incorporating occasional hypotheses an judgments about the prognosis for the defendant's future. Training provided by the state affected this group of generally high-skill writers least of all three groups. The writing performance of three of the four reveals little or no change in form or content. However, Randazzo, the probation officer who wrote the longest "Evaluation and Plan" sections occasionally shortens his reports by as much as 50 percent, deleting detail but retaining well- supported generalizations about the offender. Because of the skill level and commitment of the members of this group there are very few if any unsupported generalizations in the PSIs composed by "old soldiers" at any point in the study, 1979-83. Consequently, the state's concern for this issue is least merited by this group's performance. The Old Soldiers: Attitudes While members of this group display the least alteration in their writing performance, they are most outspoken in their reactions to these changes. As a group they are most likely to identify the PSI as a document having a persuasive aim. In addition they were most likely to identify themselves as an integral part of the sentencing process, as an "assistant to the judge" or "arm 251 of the judge." Strongly influenced by a social-work inspired ideal of rehabilitation, they believe in their own efficacy as professionals, which they believe is enhanced by their performance on the PSI. For the most part they concur with James White’s description of the judicial process: The process is at heart a narrative one because there cannot be a legal case without a real story about real people actually located in time and space and culture . . . the client's narrative is not simply accepted by the lawyer but subjected to questioning and elaboration . . . in the formal legal process, that story is then retold, over and over, by the lawyer and others, in developing and competing versions, until by judgment or agreement an authoritative version is achieved (Law as Rhetoric 692). Because they believe that the narrative form most effectively transmits what they consider the logical, emotional and ethical appeals of the PSI, they are the POs most disturbed by the transformation of the document from a narrative to an abbreviated, top-down analysis recounting the "strengths and weaknesses" of the defendant. One officer described the ideal report as a "character study" that should "propose a solution" by "giving the judge the whole story." Most believe, with William Albright, that "I’m not convincing enough in this positive/negative thing." 252 Because the "old soldiers" relate their professional ethos to their ability to carry out the appeals in the PSI, they feel diminished by modifications in the form that appears to constrain their ability to be persuasive. In addition, the men in this group are distinguished by their perception that the new form, instead of stripping away judgment and hypothesis, imposes a potentially more damaging form of analysis by labeling facts "strengths or weaknesses." The "old soldiers" believe that the most recent revision of the PSI, with its emphasis on simplified expository organization, has tacitly diminished the importance of the probation officer's writing skills, a major component of their professional ethos. "We've become a robot," asserts Arnow, the most alienated of the group: "This report could be written by a machine." While they believe in the efficacy of the new "cover sheet" that clearly displays relevant data about the defendant--a reader-sponsored change--they do not believe the readers are well served by the new form, unless the reader— the judge— is not planning to read beyond the cover sheet. Group II: The Young Professionals--Writing Performance Four of the six "young professionals" clearly utilize 253 their training in top-down report writing, but the results are mixed. Steve Johnson, who previously composed highly discursive reports, now writes more clearly organized reports using the "strengths/weaknesses” format. He is sufficiently skilled and motivated to modify the form when circumstances dictate, i.e., when the defendant has few strengths to include. Pentwater, however, another high- skill writer, was producing very coherent, well-reasoned reports in 1979 and 1981; to comply with new directives, he began to produce shorter, less-detailed reports that occasionally appear ill-considered as he attempts to incorporate the "strengths" of various murderers and sex-offenders. Brenda Dobson, a medium-skill writer previously wrote long, detailed "Evaluation and Plan" sections filled with psychoanalytically-inspired judgments about the causes and'consequences of events in offenders' lives. After training, her reports are markedly shorter, often containing only three paragraphs that generally utilize the "strengths/weaknesses" format and language. While they are much less likely to include difficult-to-defend generalizations, they are also much less likely to contain relevant detail about the defendant, thereby providing a paucity of information to the presiding judge. 254 Three of the ’ ’ young professionals" demonstrate moderate or no use of the training. Mike Cahill's reports were shorter in 1983 than in 1979, perhaps as a result of training. But he does not use the "strengths/weaknesses" language; instead, he retains a simple narrative form containing far less detail and no unsupported generalizations. Cathy Meldrum's reports reveal the least change of all the "young professionals." She believes the new format is inappropriate for many cases: "There aren't many positive things and it seems I'm searching to find some positives and negatives, and I just don't feel comfortable." Prior to training she was composing straightforward summaries that contained little detail or corroborating testimony. Her post-training work after 1983 is very similar. Irene Ditka is a low-skill writer whose early work is characterized by skewed logic, weak syntax and poor grammar. While she does not use the new format, she does make some attempt to place "positives" first in her "Evaluation and Plan." This effort sometimes produces marginally-acceptable reports that appear even less well- developed and more logically skewed than her previous PSIs. 255 The Young Professionals— Attitudes The "young professionals" are divided in attitude as well as performance. Those who are most receptive to the new changes and try to incorporate them in their PSIs are also most likely to express cynicism about the efficacy of the document ("It's a useless, senseless document"), its usefulness to judges ("I don't make any assumption that they read this thing"), and the potential for rehabilitating offenders ("There never was a whole lot of reason to believe we could rehabilitate or 'habilitate* people since they never were in the first place"). In addition, this group of young professionals believes— along with the most estranged of the "old soldiers"— that the PSI, in its present form, could be composed by a computer. Nevertheless, despite or perhaps because of these attitudes, this group welcomes the changes in the "Evaluation and Plan" because it makes composing the PSI "easier." They stop short of endorsing further condensation of the report because most identify at least partially with the defendants: "If it were me, I'd feel kind of dehumanized if I were reduced to a bunch of boxes and numbers"; "If it wasn't for them, this would be a terrible job." 256 These writers intuitively recognize the significance of authorial judgment in the report, as do the old soldiers: "Without it, the writer is merely a collector of facts." Although these young professionals recognize the state's need to guard against unwarranted lawsuits, they also recognize that judgments cannot all be fully documented. Some must be the product of the probation officer's "trained intuition." The more skilled writers are less willing to recede as author and, like Jack Pentwater, have "decided that you still have to draw some conclusions . . . I just don't feel comfortable with point blank putting strengths, weaknesses, conclusions, and I have been questioned on it." The second group of "young professionals" consists of those who retain or modify the narrative form of the earlier PSI and believe the PSI is still a meaningful component of the judicial process ("It's not going to be buried away in a file") and that judges rely on information in the PSI for sentencing ("I still think the judges take a great deal of our recommendations"). Most in this group do not "feel comfortable" with the new format and, therefore, do not use it, although the least skilled in this group occasionally make an attempt to place "positive" 257 factors first, creating the type of report that one of the judges calls "absurd." While none in this group feels that judges know them personally, they do feel that their professional ethos is tied to doing a creditable job on the PSI: "If you want to do a good job on anything it would seem to do one for this." The Disaffected Probation Officers--Writing Performance Two of the three probation officers in this group of "disaffected probation officers" do not appear to have altered their performance on the PSI during the research period. Both before and after the training provided by the state, their "Evaluation and Plan" sections appear highly routinized, resembling box-checking in discursive form. Because they incorporate few distinguishing details and almost no personal testimony from relatives or employers in their reports, their PSIs seem interchangeable, and, as a result, may have little rhetorical effect in the sentencing process. Only one member of this group demonstrates k marked change in his writing as a result of training. A low-skill writer, he previously wrote extensive (1-2 page), shapeless reports; after training, he produces three-paragraph "Evaluation and Plan" sections consisting of a very brief 258 collection of strengths and weaknesses. He utilizes the strengths and weaknesses language as well as the expository form, producing a report that, in its brevity, appears more like a business memo than a report about a person. The Disaffected Probation Officers--Attitudes The "disaffected probation officers" seem to be caught in a dilemma not necessarily of their own making. They lack strong writing skills and, as a result, produce "thin," marginally acceptable reports. In addition, these probation officers exhibit little belief in the efficacy of the criminal justice system to rehabilitate or even contain offenders. As a result of these two factors, they feel relatively powerless in the \ system: "You do not feel you have the power to convince the judge . . . we are supposed to have power, but courts don't back us up . . . the people on the street know we don't [have power]." Because they feel professionally diminished, the structure and content of their reports seem far less significant to them than to the "old soldiers" who associate their professional ethos with their performance on the PSI and their relationship to judges. None of the "disaffected probation officers" feel closely allied to 259 judges; few believe the judges read their reports. Nevertheless, some welcome the writing instruction provided because it offers a some means of gaining control over what has been a professionally unsatisfying task— writing. These "disaffected probation officers"— a small group— are most likely to use industry-related terms when discussing the usefulness of the new form. One remarked that the new form "reminds [me] of business writing." Another added that the new structure was welcome because "it makes the new form shorter, like an assembly line." The Administrators Comments from administrators and probation officers during the course of this study reveals two factors that may account for the split in attitude and performance in the group of "young professionals." The first is location. This high-compliance, poor-attitude group--as well as most of the "disaffected probation officers"— happen to work in the same urban office that deals with a high percentage of offenders guilty of major crimes such as murder, rape and arson. This office has been beset by labor problems and constant management turnover, as well as problems with high recidivism. Many probation officers in the office are highly cynical about their own effectiveness, and, as a 26C result, are willing to comply with any modifications that help them dispatch their work more quickly. However, the group of "young professionals" that demonstrates low-compliance and a more positive attitude-- as well as most of the "old soldiers"-- works in an outlying office in Wayne County, a predominantly working class, white suburb beset with far fewer capital crimes and major felonies than Detroit. Working conditions have been further enhanced by the manager who has been there for many years and who has instilled in her probation officers and supervisors a sense of purpose and significance in the criminal justice process. An "old soldier" herself— by dint of long service and a social-work background--she exhibits high professional standards of performance and encourages her staff members to adopt the same standards. She is not reluctant to praise her staff and regularly promotes their sense of professional ethos. Because many in her office are imbued with a sense of their own importance in the process— unlike the probation officers in the other office--and because they maintain belief in the persuasive aim of the PSI, many are reluctant to adopt the new form which they— "old soldiers" and "young professionals" alike--believe strips the PSI of rhetorical force. This manager offers her staff wide latitude in 261 determining whether to use the narrative form in the "Evaluation and Plan" section. As a result, many have chosen to continue using.a narrative, or modified narrative form. The Judges Judges uniformly welcome the addition of a clearly- organized cover sheet, an addition they have sought for several years, because it provides a quick summary of salient information about the defendant, including the probation officer's recommendation for sentencing. While some probation officers believe that certain judges do not read beyond this cover sheet, thereby rendering their research and writing on the PSI relatively unimportant, interviews with members of this representative group indicate that judges do read the reports, evaluating them on the basis of the depth and accuracy of the facts within. i Three of the four judges interviewed consider the PSI potentially persuasive and the writers of the document as "integral to the process of sentencing." But they clearly believe the responsibility for sentencing belongs to the judge alone. Modification of the "Evaluation and Plan" section from a narrative account to a top-down report seems a marginal issue for these three who are more concerned with the content than the form of the discourse. 262 Nevertheless, several who feel the new reports are more readable, as a result of redesign, still criticize the resulting "Evaluation and Plan" sections because these sections now provide less information than they did in the past, and appear to "license the probation officer to do them "mechanistically" and "according to a formula." One judge, Judge Stokes, is concerned about the movement toward short, expository reports. She believes that a "thread of truth" ia woven through the narrative accounts of earlier PSIs. Unlike Judge Adams, she welcomes the inclusion of reasonable judgment in the PSI and believes, intuitively, that the language of the PSI, like all language, is moral and cannot be stripped of "attitude." She believes that the new form elicits reports that attempt to remove the "human element," rendering accounts "antiseptic." Judge Stokes and Judge Adams represent opposing language philosophies, with Stokes defending what Kenneth Burke has described as the "poetic ideal" of language through which truth is constructed by the interaction of all representative parties (Philosophy)♦ She believes the probation officer should interpret as well as compile facts. Judge Adams, who represents an opposite philosophical position, believes in a logical positivist 263 view of language that Burke has called "the semantic ideal" (Philosophy). Adams distrusted the inferences drawn by most probation officers, preferring that they limit their role to "fact-gatherer" and construct their reports using a "neutral vocabulary." Discussion The PSI is a bellwether document whose design and composition reflects the status of long-held American attitudes toward the rehabilitation of criminal offenders. In this inquiry I have discussed some of the economic, political and social realities that have contributed to a gradual shift away from the "rehabilitative ideal" (Allen) that has informed corrections policies, procedures and practices--including the PSI— for over a century. The PSI, a pivotal document that provides detailed information about the offender’s social history for the sentencing judge, has been described as the "crucial document linking the judge, who must select the appropriate sentence, to an information base without which the sentence would lack justice, or wisdom or both" (McAnany 1472). This rhetorical study of the PSI serves to extend research on writing performed in non-academic settings (Odell and Goswami, 1985; Scribner and Cole, 1978; Basso, 264 1974) first, by examining the writing performance and attitudes of probation officers who have been asked to modify the form and content of the document they regularly compose, and second, by examining the relationship between the form and function of this socially-significant document. The form and content of the PSI is determined by the corrections bureaucracy and then described in an official, detailed memorandum called a "procedure statement." Within this lengthy memorandum, the state establishes the legal and rhetorical parameters of the PSI for managers and supervisors who are responsible for monitoring the work performed by probation officers. The procedure statement also provides writing guidelines for probation officers as well. Rich with rhetorical implications, the procedure statement records the state's responses to changes in the law as well as shifts in the political, economic and social climate. Because the procedure statement "sets the scene" for the creation of the PSI, the two documents must be studied in conjunction with each other. In this study I have provided a detailed explanation of three procedure statements from three different periods in Michigan and United States history— 1956, 1980 and 1983— in order to explore the intricate relationship 265 between the purpose of the PSI, its form, authors and audience— represented in Burkean terms as the scene:act, agent:act, and agency:act ratios. The 1956 statement reflects the full-flower of the rehabilitative ideal by encouraging the probation officer to provide detailed information about the social history of each offender in order to enable the state to provide appropriate rehabilitative services. During this period the probation officer served more as a social worker-therapist than an administrator-policeman, as the language of this procedure statement reveals. The other two procedure statements— and corresponding samples of PSIs— were taken from the years 1979-83. I chose to investigate this period because it was a time when the State of Michigan was experiencing serious financial hardship as a result of a declining industrial base that triggered widespread unemployment. At the same time, drug use was escalating, contributing to a rising crime-rate, jail overcrowding and a growing demand from a fearful public to "get tough" on criminals. While the criminal justice system has historically attempted to strike a balance between the need to protect society and the social desire to "reform" or "rehabilitate" offenders, these conditions--which were not confined to Michigan--set in 266 motion a domino-like chain of repercussions that tilted the traditional balance strongly toward the socially pressing, and politically expedient goal of protecting society. Other legal and economic developments contributed to the erosion of the rehabilitative idea. Right-to-know laws made the PSI available to other readers, including the defense counsel, who could screen the PSI for unsubstantiated facts and generalizations about the defendant that might prejudice his case at sentencing. To prevent possible law suits, the state imposed constraints on the content of the PSI. The most seasoned professionals among the probation officers, who are generally high-skill writers committed to professional goals, were least likely to have included unsupported generalizations and hastily compiled facts in their reports. They were also the most likely to believe that . . . facts, far from being along sufficient, are useless unless they are subordinated to some type of generalization, which virtually by definition arises not out of the facts alone but out of the mind of the observer as it focuses itself upon those facts . . . respect for verified information must be combined with an understanding that all human communication at any but the lowest level, because it is based on the power to generalize, is thus partly subjective (Rutter 292). This particular group felt further estranged by new layers of bureaucracy that had been added as a result of the state takeover of the Department of Corrections, layers 267 that further separated probation officers from judges and decision-makers. The new bureaucracy.faced declining resources from the state and weakening federal support for long-established rehabilitation programs. According to James Dahl: With little chance of securing outside help, administrators [had to] look internally to sharpen their management practices, increase efficiency, and find areas of savings. Because the Presentence Investigation costs so much and could therefore save so much, probation administrators are more and more taking a critical look at the PSI (45). Long, narrative-style reports were deemed unnecessary in light of an additional major development— the national trend toward determinate sentencing, which conflicted with the rehabilitative ideal. The belief in rehabilitation was based upon a concomitant belief in the judges' ability to fairly apportion blame and punishment once they were provided with sufficient information from both the trial and PSI. But citizens questioned the fairness of these judgments because of wide disparities in sentencing between members of diverse groups— rich and poor, black and white, even rural and urban dwellers. Growing publicity about sentencing disparities fueled the movement toward determinate, or fixed, sentences, which had a corollary effect on the PSI. As Judge Carlucci explained: "Why bother with really going into someone's background, 268 character and nature if you’re minimizing judicial discretion anyway?” (Personal interview, June 12, 1985). The state responded to these demands by continuing to modify the form and content of the PSI, in an attempt to make it easier to read, write and process. However, because of a severe backlog in adjudication of cases, the emphasis has fallen on the latter of these three goals— processing offenders. A top-ranked corrections' administrator acknowledged the shift in attitude from a former, more altruistic period: The product we said we could produce, we never could produce (or even] produce the research to support our claim that the things we did for people caused change. It [rehabilitation] was kind of oversold, so people are kind of backing away from it toward a belief that people rehabilitate themselves . . . we have adopted a "brokered services” routine; we are not active treatment specialists (Patten, personal interview, March 1985). Technological advancements, particularly the widespread availability and use of computer systems, have created new methods of encoding and displaying PSI information. If the demand continues for more rapid processing and a interest in the offender remains negative, the temptation may be great to reduce the PSI to data bits to be fed into a computer program. This possibility has been envisioned--and criticized--by many of the probation [officers and judges in this study. But those who are 269 suspicious of the power of language to persuade and who long for a neutral, value-free vocabulary, look toward a time when there may be a: formulation of a set of standards for the language, [for] communication and [for a] logical style to be used in the preparation of a presentence investigation. The final phase of this evolution could comprise a total objectification of reports such that specific responses would be elicited from the probation officer by means of a standardized questionnaire. The advantage here would be that the data obtained could be fed into a bank and conveniently utilized by both correctional personnel and researchers (Gabor and Jaywardene 26). Implications Because of constraints that have been imposed, the Corrections Department has reshaped itself from a social agency to a business responsible for protecting society from offenders as expeditiously as possible. The "rehabilitative ideal" has faded, replaced by the goal of greater efficiency. While the technology of document design has, in other settings, served to produce more readable documents that facilitate access to important federal and state services, the technology of document design applied to the criminal justice system has had very mixed results because the system remains responsible for providing human services despite its transformation into a business. In "The Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law," James 270 White describes the moral dilemma created when such transformations occur: The pressure of bureaucratic discourse is always to think in terms of ends and means; but in practice ends-means rationality is likely to undergo a reversal by which only those things can count as ends for which means of a certain type exist. This often results in a reduction of the human to the material and the measurable . . . (689) Those charged with the revision of significant social documents, like the PSI, must be cognizant not only of the political and economic constraints that prompted revision but also of potential rhetorical effects of such revision because the technical organization of a work may also organize the work emotionally (Burke, Philosophy 92) and ideologically: When a particular form constrains against the communication of a message contrary to the interests of some power elite, it serves an ideological function. Insofar as form guides function, formal values may carry implicit moral/political values (Coe 20). Major changes in form may do not simply reflect economic and political realities, they but may also serve to reinforce those same realities. 271 Appendix A Challenges to the Code of Legal Discourse Both lawyers and linguists have described the origins and effects of legal language, providing important research that serves as the foundation of recent efforts to simplify the code of legal discourse. In his classic work, The Language of the Law, David Mellinkoff describes the etymological transformation of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, French, Old and Middle English to present-day legalese. By illustrating how legal language is an amalgam of several forms and many languages, The Language of the Law offers a penetrating analysis of the obstacles to precision, brevity and intelligibility in legal language. In her scholarly, sociolinguistic study, "Language in the Legal Process," Brenda Danet considers the "nature, functions, and consequences of language use in the negotiation of social order" (449). Concerned with the ways in which language maintains social equilibrium, Danet examines the language of legal professionals in lawyers' briefs, appellate decisions and such less rule-governed discourse as jury deliberations and examinations of witnesses. She illustrates how the language used by professionals creates an "illusion of authority" that may 272 seem insurmountable to lay persons (457). Danet's research correlates with that of Duncan Kennedy, noted member of the Critical Legal Studies movement and author of "Legal Educaiton as Training for Hierarchy" (in The Politics of Law) . In his valuable article, "The Language of the Law" (in Language in the U.S.A.), William O'Barr asserts that court talk and its written counterpart, legalese, "constitute an alien language for American society." He attempts to identify those features of legal language that are most significantly related to difficulties in comprehending formal legal language, concentrating especially on instructions to juries (19). O'Barr demonstrates that forms of variation in diction— typically ignored as unimportant by the court— have significant effects on evaluation of testimony, witness credibility, effectiveness of legal counsel, and more generally, attitudes toward the legal process itself (51). Judith Levi provides a topical bibliography, "Linguistics, Language and the Law,” that contains research and written reports by linguists and social scientists. Published by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, this bibliography focuses on such issues as the language of courtroom interactions, the rights of linguistic minorities 273 and the "plain English" movement, offering a starting point for research on the linguistic and social implications of legal language. In "Form and Function in Testament Language," Edward Finegan argues that some forms of legalese, specifically certain syntactic structures, "arise from the discourse situation, or are necessitated by it" (115). He offers linguistic reasons why passive voice, frequent use of conditional sentences, imperative mood and other grammatical and syntactic features occur in testament language. Finegan examines the language of testament writing from the lawyer's point of view, establishing the judicial situations that necessarily elicit certain linguistic forms. Patricia Wright argues that many legal documents pose a "lexical steeplechase, in which intrepid readers surmount the hurdles of archaic terms only to stumble at the lengthy waterjumps of qualifying clauses packed end to end against each other" (121). In her article, "Is Legal Jargon a Restrictive Practice," Wright answers her question in the affirmative, asserting, like Danet, that legal language "sets limits to the justice available through the courts" (122) . 274 Appendix B 1956 Procedure Statement DEPARTMENT OF' CORRECTION'S E~U R E A U OF PROBATION /?S < t > OUTLINE FOR PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT The law places on the probation officer the obligation to investigate the "ante cedents, character and circumstances" of any person convicted by verdict or plea, of a felony before the court passes sentences on a defendant. In making an in vestigation, the probation officer should interview the defendant and as many other, persons as necessary to determine the""social, economic and criminal History of the defendant! AH-available means should be utilized which_may—throw new light on the character and tendencies of the defendant and verify or check_his Si.atan.ents and" those of "others. "The probation'officer'3 purpose in the investi gation should be to discover all the pertinent facts and by analysis to arrive at a true picture of the defendant's character, aptitudes, tendencies, desires, ambition, problems and outlook on life. His report to the court should make note of these and, if the court so directs, the probation officer should indicate what, in his judgment, would be an adequate disposition of the case. QbviouslV. a probation officer, who..merely gathers^fAc_tual_information, no matter how adequately,_is_not fulfilling his whole obligation in the'inat'€er’ 'bf~the ’ pre^' s’ gnTence investigation report. in"other"'words,’ "sdWething'mofff'i'3'TCnipUed’ ’ in €Ke making of a presentence investigation report than in the making of a pre sentence investigation — that is, interpretations, evaluations and observations However, it is axiomatic that the investigator must be objective. This new outline stresses the importance of finding out why the off/tender committed this offense. Was it a deep seated personality problem or one of-m^ny other possible reasoqs? Out vihr.be approach must, he ope of finH-ing_reasons and not fault.. . The attached outline for making a prepentence report is intended as a guide and is not to be construed as be sufficiently comprehensive to cover every aspect of every case. The outline covers all of the items of information which are generally accepted as fundamental to all cases - some being more important to prison officials thaJr to probation or parole and vice versus.. It gives consider^ able latitude to the investigator in his selection of points .of__emphasis and it must be understood that sub-headings and: quotes can be used in any section" of this outline with the probation officer using his own best judgment. It is expected that the general form of presentation will be uniformly used. As you know, our'presentence investigation outiine_h3S been.revised.,east three times previgjis ly- Tn ftach inst.anrp } improvements, such as less duplica- tion and more stress on pertinent factors have" been made. Once again, after, several conferences with all Bureausof the Department which use this investigation, it has been^decided that another revision is advisable and necessary if the more definitive type of information is to be sequred. In 275 - 2 - our last presentence outline there were several headings or_sgetions that can now be eliminMred:"Alggr~a3(?i'tionai stress for more thorough_probing has been indicated in certain areas so that tfie investigation will niore adequately meet the needs of: - (1) The court in disposing of the case (2) The Probation Officer's supervision or treatment program (3) The Probation Recovery Camp Staff U) The New Reception Center and classification committees at our prisons (5) The Parole Board (6) The Parole Officer The Report to the,Gourtrirr~tihe past has been a complete summary of the case and therefore has beerh-duplication^in its entirety. The Report to the Coiirt form will be used in the future but its_content will be changed. It is the consensus that the--summary can be greatly reduced} The Report to the Court, in the futiye, will idefltify'the offender, the crime, and other pertinent legal. data^_snch_aa vjhen and where the offense was committed. Whose property was involved or who was the complainant. All this can be done in a very short paragraph of perhaps ten lines. The rest of the Report to the Court will be an "Evaluation and Flan. The "Evaluation should be written in narrative form so that the Judge can get as complete a picture as possible as to the strengthsr the weaknesses, the pro blems. the attitudeP and the potential of the offender. The "Plan" is mm-e difficult- When it appears to be a commitment case, if the outline has been followed in all its phases, then little need be added, because commitment is a plan. But even then in certain cases, objectives to be attained while in prison must be enumerated. If it appears to be a proba tion cases, then it is imperative that a program (plan), made by the offender, must be offered to the Court. If the offender can offer no such plan then a mutually approved.plan as worked out by the offender and officer must be offered to the Court. Such a plain should indicate an overall reasonable chance of success. It should, at least, include an arranged work program arid a home situation which would be conducive to supervision. Restitution must be detelrmined. Any”special~ terms of probation which appear necessary for the good of the offender and the public should be suggested to the court in this plan. It is strongly urged that each officer study this new outline until he is thor oughly familiar with all aspects of each heading. The adoption of this outline is effective as of February 13, 1956. 276 3 - SOURCE OF REFERRAL This states your authority for making the investigation; it should include date of the referral, the Court and the Judge and, where applicable, the Chief Probation Officer from whom the referral came. SOURCES OF This will be a listing of all the sources from vAiich you obtained INFORMATION the information contained in the report. Include pertinent identifying information, such as street address and city. The address of an agency that is well known and which can be found in the telephone directory, is not necessary. 1. Social Service Exchange Lansing, Michigan 2. Al's Service Station 123 Central Avenue Lansing, Michigan 3. Mrs. John Hansen, mother 2li5 Madison Avenue Jackson, Michigan U. Bureau of Social Aid Flint, Michigan 5. Usually some ten sources are necessary "whole ball of wax" about of the the offense INVESTIGATOR'S In this section should be the______________ VERSION OF off ense. It should present as objective a ' version THE OFFENSE as the probation officer can give, using the information he has gathered from all sources. If this version is identical with the offender's version, then so state and do not repeat it here. Simply say, "Offender's version is accurate and complete." Inasmuch as we are omitting the "Official Vp-r^-Ann nf i>iR Offpn.se," start this section with a statgnent (in layman's language - without the "to-wits" and "wherefores"!,of the offense to which the offender has either plead guilty or has been found guilty. Here we can easily cover the circumstances surrounding the arrest, the time the man has been confined and if represented by an attorney. Was he originally charged with a more serious, offense or did he "cop a plea" to a lesser offense. Is he on bond? Who furnished it? that we will describe other offenses the man has committed, whether this B & E was just one or a series of offenses. It is here, too, e. g-, liberal usie of quotes from the officersf__and the like. and include_thelr.attitude— toward the offense and the offender. THE PRACTICE OF USING QUOTES IE A VERY FINE TECHNIQUE AND SHOULD" BE'USED OFTEN. It is important to know what consecutive set of circumstances led to the apprehension of this offender. What was his attitude at the time of the arrest? Did he cooperate with the arresting officer? Was he ever a "trusty"? The prison is interested in this item because if the sheriff or police have used him as a "trusty" it is possiblie that he might be given "trusty" status sooner. 277 - h - Include here, such things as whether or not counties are going to issue warrants and will they prosecute. This is the place to include the amounts of restitution, where applicable. The personnel at the Institution have asked that we include, in this section, the full names of co-defendants and/or participants in the offense. Did offender know defendants and for how long? What kind of an association was there between defendants. Why were they together? If pertinent, what were their mutual interests? Explain carefully to what extent the offender participated in the commission of the offense. It is important to note what part intoxicants may have played in the offense. Many offenders, after they are imprisoned declare they were "dead drunk" when they got into trouble and didn't know what they had done. OFFPJDER'S The institutional personnel, the parole board and others, for VERSION OF purposes of checking future stories of the offender, like to THE OFFENSE have a statement in his own words, describing just what he did. We want the offender's point of view, his feeling toward the situation in wtdjihJhe-Xix^S_lum.s.elf . - hi.s_P.dint~~of~vi~ew~on~ the~caule ol""hi'sgetting into trouble and what he considered to be the.motivating factors. In a few cases, this will1 be interwoven with a statement of what actually took~p*lace at the time of the offense. If it is, well and good. However, if it isn't we could well set it up under a separate paragraph outlining what we have drawn from him during that part of the interview pertaining to the offense. (The underlined is very important and the probation officer should particularly probe into the reasons and answers given by the offender to these itms.) PREVIOUS This section will contain the official fingerprint record of TROUBLE the man and his local police record, plus any other previous criminal activity the officer's investigation has disclosed, ooth juvenile and adult. Where it is possible to get the information, include Here a onei" description of the previous offenses and the offender's explanation for them. Include, where applicable, the offender's previous adjustment while in an institution and on parole or while on probation. It has been decided that the Juvenile Court history (if any) will be listed first with attention paid to whether or not his appearances in Juvenile Court were "official" or "unofficial." Has there been an escape record? Next will be the adult record (if any). Include here the FBI number (if possible), the state police number and the fingerprint classification. The Court may not be interested in separate listings for misdemeanors. If so, it can be noted that offender has been arrested some 2d or 25 times on D & D. One should check the record for assaults, it may give a clue to an evaluation. However, the Court will be interested in having all felony cases listed separately with complete information on each one, including disposition. 278 - 5 - OFFENDER'S PERSONAL HISTORY Family We start this section with a listing of the names, ages and Background addresses of the man's immediate family and any other relative & Early Life who has played an important part in offender's development. The institutional personnel would like us to be particularly careful to include the names and ages of all siblings, no matter how young they may be. They rely upon our presentence for this information when the inmate requests either writing or visiting privileges for members of his family. If the particular member he names is not included in the presentence report, then the inmate is denied visiting and writing privileges until he can produce proof that that person is related to him. List married female siblings as Mary (Mrs. John) Brown. Also list step-siblings, and half-siblings. Following a listing of the relatives would come a narrative,^ descriptive oictur< of the offender's family and his early life at homel'lip 'to the point where the offender permanently left the parental home or foster-home, as the case may be. Compare the offender's status with that of other siblings or step-siblings. One of the things we want to discuss here is the general pattern ,of living of the family. We might note the parent's aspirations for the offender, their educa tional levels, criminal tendencies (what other members of the family have had criminal records' and what their offenses werp, if any). What were the moral and ethical standards and attitudes of members of the family toward each ott^er. The closeness of the family group and the quality and type of family recreation or_ any significant material relative to developmental history (particularly sympto matic behavior such as enuresis, signs of nervousness, temper, tantrums, truancy, etc.) should be included here. It would be well to note whether or not there are any members of this family who are or may be willing and able to help this offender on probation or later on parole. What is the offender's attitude toward his family as a whole, toward individual msnbers and toward his early life at home? Marital In the first section, we are dealing with the man's own family History and now, in this section, we are dealing with the man's "acquired' family. Start' this section with a complete history of the offender's marriage (or marriages), with dates, places, maiden najne of wife (or wives), names and ages of the children in a similar manner as in the "Family" section. Be sure to include addresses. List each wife and children separately. In the case of divorce or separation, include the dates, reasons for the marriage failure, custody of the children, support payments and the like. Include as complete a picture as you can of the total marriage situation., the attitude of the spouses toward each other, sexual compatibility, health of the children, family interference, and the degree tfl Which"the offender has been able to assume the role of husband and father. It might be well, in most cases, to include a descriptive word or two on the wife (or wives) - her age, educational level and your evaluation of her as either a help or hindrance to the offender. 279 - 6 - Has he paid the hospital bills and doctors bills for past confinements of his wife? Does his wife work - where - income? What does she do with the money she earns? Education This is a history of the_offenderJ_s_schooling.and his adjustments while in school. Place particular anphasis on this section when it is a youthful offender. Be sure and verify the young offender's school record, including any truancy record, participation in extra curricular activities and his basic intelligence. Is he interested in trade training? How did he get along with his teachers and his classmates? In some schools there will be health records. If the school system employs a visiting teacher - be sure and see her regarding the offender. For the older offender it will be next to impossible to verify school records- but your evaluation of his basic intelligence is important. Has this older offender shown any interest in furthering his schooling? Can he read and write? Offender will not volunteer this information. For both the younger and oid er offender the probation officer should determine if the offender has any ambition to improve himself educationally or vocationally. Service We will include here (as we always have) the branch of service, Record dates, type of discharge, rahlfarrcnihere this information is available; also include a general picture of his adjustment while he was in the service and any benefits available to him under the G. I. Bill. Was he A. W. 0. L. at any time, or several times, and for how long? Why was he A. W. 0. L. ? Did he spend any time in disciplinary barracks? Was there a court martial? Did he ever have any ambition to make "The Service'1 a career? Does he receive compensible disability? If so - how much per month? Employment Give here a general picture of his over-all employment record. Be specific as to the jobs he has held. Do not say "Factory worker" - say drill press operator, moulder, etc., or common laborer with no special skills. Rates of_shift- . tendency toward betterment and„his—attitude toward his boss are important. We should have, for the last two or three places the offender has Veen employed, specific names, dates, reasons for separation, the attitude of these employers and whether or not they would rehire. If the offender has shifted rapidly from one employment to another, we should verify back far enough to some one place where his employer knows something about him and get that employer's attitude toward him. A chronological listing of all places worked is not necessary but certainly an accurate evaluation of the offender as a worker is important. Does he have any ambition to improve hi, s gki^l. Did he have part time jobs when he was going to school? Has he attended training classes while on the job? Economic Here will be a factual presentation of the man's assets and Situation liabilities, listing the family's income, from whatever source, and all indebtedness, (in some cases, much of this material may have been covered under the "Marital History"). Here we are looking for the balance between the total income, the offender's indebtedness and his rate of spending. Does he carry any insurance? If so, what? Who is~lK~e beneficiary.-- What, is he buying on the installment plan? Does he own a car? How much did he pay down, how much does he pay on the balance each week or each month? What, make 280 - 7 - and year is this car? Does he have a driver's or chauffeur's license? Does he have any ambitions to improve his economic status? Always be alert. Make evaluations. Health This section will include both physical and mental health.- not only the present situation, but the history of past physical or mental illnesses. A copy of the results of any psychiatric examination or recent physical examination that the offender may have had should be included here in full. Are there any physical handicaps? Any use of narcotics or excessive use of alcohol or any sexual deviations should be fully discussed here. Habits In this section we are striving to describe the offender's & pattern of living during his leisure time. How is hi s li fe Recreation organized from day to day or how is it disorganized? Does he use his leisure time in a constructive manner? How much de pendence does he have upon commercial forms of recreation? How does he get along with people in general? Is he gregarious or a lonely sort of fellow? We are after more than just a listing of things he does or does not do. We could well note the type of people with whom he usually associates - their cultural and economic level. To what organizations does the offender belong? What type of reading does he do - if any. Are his wife and family included in his outside recreational activities? As we have mentioned many times, _it would_ seem better to emphasize a positjyg _typs_.of.Jriforfflatian-^than—a—3rong list of activities "in which the offender does not engage. Religion We should note the denominational preference. The amount of religious training the offender received during the early part of his life, his attitude toward this training and his present attitude toward church or religious matters must be searched for and noted. Is there a priest, minister or rabbi to whom we could look for help. The names of the priest, minister or rabbi of the churches attended should be noted so that verifications can be made and to learn if active assistance can be expected. 281 - 8 - EVALUATION The Report to the Court form will be used for this section. & No long summary of the material contained in the main sections PLAN of the report proper should appear in the initial part of the Report to the Court. Rather, a paragraph of perhaps ten lines which identifies the offender, the crime and other pertinent legal data is all the summary should contain. (See Page 2) Following_this_ should ,be._an .evaluations!-.the._.aaa.e:t8_. and This-must be concisely written and clearly and accurately stated. Write this report much_as. Y0u_wpuld discuss the case with your supervisor or ._ac.roSS_the_-table_Yri.th the Judge in his chambers. This must include his psychological make-up, his intelligence, his potential to accept responsibility for his future, his general attitude of cooperation, his stability, his ability to improve in social function ing and many others depending on the particular offender. In discussing the above, the goal is to "pin point" the causative factors for the offender's failure to adjust in the past. This would come quite naturally in discussing the assets and liabilities, as described. Further discussion would bring out the immediate causative factors - or the crises, as some put it - which brought about the specific criminal activity which brought the offender to our attention, such as the quarrel with the wife which led to assault, heavy drinking immediately preceding the offense, and the like. Now, it does not appear that we are going to be able to do all of this, without some duplication oT material previously presented. For example, if we feel that the offender is unstable and that this is a liability which will militate against probably success on probation, we would, no doubt, be basing this judgment on certain material in the record, e. g., early truancy from school, an unsatis factory work record - rapid changing from one job to another, with no tendency toward betterment - and/or a history of nomadism. These factors we would have previously discussed at some length in the appropriate sections but in this section, we probably would say something like this: "This offender is an unstable individual^ as indicated in his school record, his work record and his tendency toward nomadism." We think, even in this section, where we are trying to eliminate duplication and be brief, we should guard against flat statements characterizing an individual or situation without including something to back up our judgments. Then the officer must decide if offender's assets are greater than his liabilities. If the answer is "no" commitment is indicated and this—ih—itself is a plan. If there are objectives which the prison officials could stress, then the investigator should enumerate all objectives. An example would be, "This man has some talents in the electrical field and should be encouraged to learn more." If the answer is "yes," then try and have the offender formulate a plan for the immediate future. If he cannot do so, try and help him formulate such a plan - a plan that has his approval. This will be an immediate plan which attacks problems such as employment, housing and the like. AJLong range plan aimed at correcting the offender'^ m z e g —a l l — m a l a d j u s t m e n t may be worked out later as a supervisory function. Special terpis of probation may be suggested if the ol'ncer feels that such conditions are necessary for the overall good of the offender and the public. Fines, costs and restitution are usually included as special terms. 282 - 9 - Your recommendation for disposition may be made here. (This recommendation should be made only when prior approval of such procedure has been secured from the Judge.) Sign this report: Respectfully submitted, Name Title Revised February 2, 1956 283 Appendix C 1980 Procedure Statement MICHIGAN DEFT. OF CORRECTIONS PROCEDURE E F F E C T IV E D A T E April 1. 1980 A P P L IC A T IO N Bureau of Field Services NUMBER 0P-8FS-71.01 S U P E R S E D E S N O 0P-BFS-71.02 o a t e o 11/1/7/ 6/15/79 S U B J E C T PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION/DISTRIBUTION 1 17 B U R E A U /IN S T IT U T IO N N U M B E R S U P E R S E D E S NO OBJECTIVE: FORMS USED: INFORMATION: To describe the format for completion and distribution of the pre sentence investigation report. CF0-101 {revised 11/79) Basic Information Report CFO-145 (revised 3/79) Report to the Court The pre-sentence report has been described as a thorough study of the individual characteristics and problems of the offender. The process Is one of selecting, gathering, organizing, and analyzing data relating to the convicted person and his/her circumstances as they relate to his/her criminality. All offenders enter the adult correctional process by way of the adult criminal courts. The primary purpose of the pre-sentence report is to provide the sentencing court with timely, relevant and accurate data so that it may select the most appropriate sen tencing alternative and correctional disposition. Adequate time for consideration is necessary, therefore, the pre-sentence report should be available to the court two working days prior to the date of sentence. All PSI reports are declared by law (MSA 28.2299; CL 791.229 as amended by PA 89 of 1979) to be privileged or confidential com munications not open to public Inspection. Agencies entitled to inspect the pre-sentence are the Attorney General, the Auditor General, law enforcement agencies, and the courts. General Court Rule 785.12 established by the Michigan Supreme Court and effective September 1, 1973, reads as follows: “The sentencing court shall permit the defendant's attorney or, if he Is not represented by counsel, the defendant to inspect the pre- sentence report. The prosecution shall also be shown the report. Both parties shall be given an opportunity at time of sentencing to respond to the pre-sentence report and to explain or controvert any factual representations disclosed. The court may except from disclosure parts of the report which are not relevant to a proper sentence, diagnostic opinion which might seriously disrupt a ram of rehabilitation, or sources of information which have DTO£ been >een obtained on a promise of confidentiality~i In all cases where parts of the report are not disclosed under such authority, the court shall state for the record the reasons for Its action and Inform the defendant and his attorney that Information has not been disclosed. The action of the court in excepting information from disclosure shall be' subject to appellate review.” (Emphasis Supplled) TF4 GOGUMENT T E P * PROCEDURE e p r t C T iv e o a t * April 1, 1980 N U M B E R 0P-BFS-71.oi PAG* I B U R E A U /1 N IT . N U M E H SUPERSEDES NO. 0P-BFS-71.01 0P-8FS-71.02 The last sentence of the rule makes it impossible for either the agent or the trial court to give a guarantee of confidentiality to an informant. The agent should make this limit clear to the per son from whom he obtained confidential material. If informational disclosure would be likely to cause serious harm or injury, it should be excluded from any part of the report. PROCEDURE: FORMATS Two basic formats will be used for the pre-sentence report. The jjjng form shall be used initially in all prisonable cases and when gpecificailv ordered by the court except misdemeanors^ The short" Form shall be used in nonprisonable offenses, to update a long form completed within the preceding three years, on escape cases, on offenses committed while on escape status, and for offenses committed while in custody or on parole. LONG FORM PRE-SENTENCE i I. The Long Form Pre-Sentence will consist of three (3) parts: The Report to the Court (Form CFO-145), the Basic Information Sheet (CF0-101), and the Body of the Report. A. REPORT TO THE COURT The Report to the Court shall be prepared on Form CFO-145 divided into three sections: Sunmary, Evaluation and Plan, and Recommendation. 1. Summary: The first paragraph should contain the defendant's name(s), date and manner of adjudication, charge, county, attorney's name, whether or not he is court appointed, and defendant's bond status (i.e., remanded, recognizance, or surety bond). The second paragraph should be a clear and abbre viated description of the offense in lay terms. It should outline the salient aspects of the offense, apprehension and, if applicable, the details of the plea negotiations. A third brief paragraph would enumerate additional admitted or pending charges and whether or not the resolution of these charges—+s-~ 4epeRdent on the disposition in the instant case. — 1 285 O O C UM ENT T Y R E PROCEDURE E F F E C T IV E D A T E April 1, 1980 NU M BER 0P-BFS-71.01 p a g c ^ or 17 B U R E A U /IN S T . N U M BER s u p c r s c o c s n o . QP-BFS-71.01 0P-BFS-71.02 2. Evaluation and Plan: State briefly and chronologi cally the significant factors in the defendant's social history. The second paragraph in this section will be the agent’s evaluation of the defendant: his/her strengths, weaknesses, abilities, readiness for change, and established behavior patterns based on the factual material described in the body of the report. Try to develop some hypothesis about the facts which appear to be contributing to the" individual's involvement in criminal behavior. This section must detail the plan for achieving the desired change in the defendant's behavior pattern. It is necessary to ensure that, if probation is granted, a plan will be available on the first day of supervision. The plan should include such con siderations as employment. residence, education, etc., and should be developed with the offender. TTTe plan should be realistic in that both the goals set and the resources required are attainable. The appropriate time to search for alternatives to a prison sentence is during the pre-sentence investigation. The use of alternatiuoc curb as halfway houses, detoxffication centers, civil addict commitment programs, and self-help groups Wy be appropriate. . It may be necessary to recom- mend confinement on the basis of statute or circumstances. In those cases, the goals of rnn-, finement should he. outlined aad— incr ifutinnal treatment programs should bp ri»coiimpnitA<i. _ The number "of days of jail credit must also be noted. A written recommendation for disposition is required after April 1, 1980 by P.A. 81 of 1979. The recommendation must be specific and supported by the factual information and evaluation in the report. It shall contain any special condition recommended. In each case where property loss or medical expense occurred as a result of the instant offense, a statement on restitution must be made whether recommended or*not. This^should include the dollar amount as can be determined at the time, and a statement describing the offenders ability to pay. a o - J 1* 286 OO CXa &Ht TY« PROCEDURE I E F F t C T IV e Q A T C April 1, 1980 0P-8FS-71.Q1 I a u s»iZA u/iH S T. n u n s s c * S*Jt»eRS£DES NO. 0P-8FS-71.01 0P-BFS-71.02 B. BASIC INFORMATION REPORT The Basic Information Report {CFO-101) serves two aunmtiU- It is first of all the facesheet for the PSI provides quick reference to Sasic facts~~aSout T«F~ case an<rTHe~offenderJ if the offender is sentence3~Eo’ prison,'most” of the information from this form is uti lized to provide the basic data for the electronic data system of the Department. As such, it must be executed accurately and uniformly. Definitions, keyed by number to the sample report contained in the procedure, have been developed to standardize the "data elements." This information _then becomes the basis for manaoament_and (J j) research reports. (See pages 11-17 for data element definitions.} C. THE BOOT OF THE REPORT In completing the Body of the Report, the key ingredient is .flejtihi 1 ity. The agent should use only those headings that are appropriate for decision making in the current case. Ex: If a defendant's health history is normal .and is not a~ factor in programming or understanding defendant's actions, then simutv omit, the entire _section. Keep in mind that all topical "headings on the worksheet format will be considered, and all blanks on the basic information sheet must be filled. !• Investigator's Description of the Offense: This section should describe in detail" the factual details of the offense. The information must be objective and verifiable. The details must include the _aiacs. method of commission, par- tJ£l&AUim--jijL_athers,._i^^Q5~InfIj[hg acTTsTTand identification of the v 1ctim(s). Uf thearrest was other than routine, a brief description should be offered. } If the instant offense is one of a series, this must be described. If restitution is 1 ad . i ca t . gd, the—verifiable .amount and name—And address of the recipient should be listed here. The names and current status of codefendants are necessary. Pending charges in this and other jurisdi£pjims-25!isniillrdi£===fe«^ However, caution ■Ifiust be used to assure that the charges are offi cial and prosecution is intended at this time. 287 oocumcnt tv re PROCEDURE errecriv* oatb April 1, 1980 NUMeen 0P-BFS-71.01 pa«e 5 or 17 | •UMEAU/IMT. NUMBER Hirenseoes no. 0P-BFS-71.01 0P-BFS-71.02 t:t.bT ■ ' ..ty . am / Each of these should be reviewed with the offender f for his/her version and voluntary verification If V he/she chooses. 2. Offender's Description of the Offense: If the Investigator s statement of the offense Is Iden tical with the offender's version, so state and do not repeat the information. Simply state. "The offender concurs with the Investigator's descrlp- -ffWOT the offense." If the defendant does not wish to discuss the offense, then so state; e.g., defendant anticipates appealing his/her conviction and may not wish to make a statement about the offense for fear of compromising his/her appeal. If the defendant 1s willing to give a statement, then quote him/her directly and Include in the sta tement what he/she did, when, where, with whom, and to whom, and why he/she did it. Include also a statement as to his/her analysis of how he/she became Involved 1n the crime. 1. Previous Criminal Record: This section will con tain the complete criminal record of the offender. The juvenile court history will be listed first and wfietner or not his/her appearances were official or unofficial. If Institutionalized as a juvenile, 1s there an escape record? Include any available per tinent behavioral and performance Information con tained 1n the juvenile record. With the adult record, review each arrest with the defendant and verlfy If nnssihle that each entry aoes pertain to him/her.List disposition whenever . available. Arrest not resulting In conviction may be listed and so noted. Indicate whether or not defendant had an attorney. for each prior fnnv^Mnn. "The court should be •mrtTsed 1 f an attorney vas not present so that 1t may conduct an Inquiry as to the constitutionality of the conviction. The absence of an attorney does not mean that the conviction should be excluded c*o-a<» 288 D O C U M E N T T Y P E PROCEDURE e F F E C T I v e D A T E April 1, 1980 OP-BFS-71.01 r a g c I B U N C A U /IN S T . N U M B E R 5. S U P E R S E D E S N O . OP-BFS-71.01 OP-BFS-71.02 from the court's consideration. It merely requires that the court Inquire Into and determine for Itself the constitutionality of prior convictions. Offender's Personal History: jitart this section with a listing of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the offender's Immediate family and other relatives who were an important part In the offender's development. Be par ticularly careful to include the names and ages of all siblings, no matter how young they may be. List married females as Mary (Mrs. John) Brown. Also, Hist step-siblings and half-s1blings. Give a narrative description of the offender's family and his/her early life at home up to the point where he/she permanently left the parental residence or foster home. Discuss the general pat tern of living of the family and any Indication of criminal behavior by other members. Note the parents' aspirations for the offender. Significant material relative to developmental history, par ticularly symptomatic behavior such as enuresis, signs of nervousness, temper tantrums, truancy, etc., should be included here. judgmental statements. Limit the written description to"fac tual information only. .Note whether or not there are members of the family who mav be wiinng ano able to help the offender." Note the offender’s attitude towards his/her early life at home, towards his/her family, and towards Individual members of the family. If the defendant has lived away from the parental home as a single person, Include a paragraph or two outlining his/her pattern of living during that time. Marital History: Include a complete history of the offender's marriages or other living arrangements, with dates, places, names of spouse (or spouses), names and ages of children, 1n format similar to the “Family'' section. In the case of divorce or separation, include the dates, reason for the marriage failure, custody of the children, support payments, etc. 289 OOCUMENY t y p e PROCEDURE e r r E C T iv * o * t e April 1, 1980 NUMBER OP-BFS-71.01 I BUREAU/IMSY. NUMBER PAGE or 17 SUPERSEDES NO. OP-BFS-71.01 OP-BFS-71.02 Include as complete a picture as you can of the total marriage. Give the attitude of the marriage partners toward each other, the degree to which the offender has been able to assume marital and paren tal responsibility. Include the description of the spouse including age, education attainment, occupa tional capacity, and attitude toward the offender. Military Service: Include branch of service, dates of service, type of discharge, and rank. Describe the defendant s adjustment while he/she was 1n the service and any residual benefits available under the G. I. Bill. Check the defendant's 0.0. 214. It 1s recommended that the agent obtain a copy for the permanent office file. Job Readiness: his/her Present a general picture of employment record and any marketable For the last two or three jobs, be speci- job titles, rate of pay, reason for and attitude towards supervision. skills f1c giving termination, Describe the employer's evaluation of the defendant and whether or not they would rehire. Describe any vocational training obtained or desired. Education: It Is recommended that a signed consent form be used. Place particular empnasis on this section" when he/she is, a youthful QffpnWar Verify the young offender's schoolrecord, Including academic achievement, truancy record, participation in .extracurricular activities, his/her manner of relating to teachers and classmates, and if he/she dropped out, and why. Include any diagnostic material available, including I.Q. records, school social worker reports, and reports of school diagnostician. Describe any needs for further edu cation and motivation for continued education. Substance Abuse: This section should describe in detail the offender's Involvement with alcohol or drugs. Try and discern 1f addiction exists. Relate if the offender was under the Influence at the time of the offense. If there is substantial evidence that the offender Is involved in drug trafficking, document this. Remember that the 290 ! r , DOCUMENT TYPE E F F E C T IV E D A T E □ATE NUM8C* PROCEDURE April 1, 1980 0P-BFS-71.01 i » a g c 8 or 17 [ ■ u n e A u /iN S T N U M B en _____________ SUPERSEDES NO. OP-BFS-71.01 OP-BFS-71.02 defense can challenge the accuracy of your report. It is important to get some indication of the offender's perception of his problem and any suggested treatment programs. 10. Mental and Physical Health: This section should describe both physical and mental health. Any significant problems which are germane to disposi tion in the case should be included. Psychiatric examinations should be treated as confidential material. If he/she has been treated, describe the extent and current status and list the name and address of the treatment facility. Describe any obvious relationship between the Impairment and his/her community adjustment (Including criminal behavior). If immediate medical attention is Indicated, this should be described. 11. Socialization: Cortwnent here on the individual's pattern of Interaction with others and the community, and the degree to which it may consti- < tute a problem. This will Invariably tie 1n clo sely with psychological problems referred to In the | preceding section. Be concerned here with overall personality characteristics. The Interview should be a valuable source for getting some indications of the nature of his/her ability to interact with others. Try to obtain some idea of the offender's | perception of himself/herself and how he/she thinks | others perceive him/her. A description of leisure time activities may be useful. 12. Economic Situation: Give a factual presentation of assets and liabilities. List spending patterns. If the defendant 1s the primary source of Income for the family, does he/she 1n fact spend earnings on the family or does he/she use them on self-indulgence? Is he/she over-extended In terms of credit expenditures? If so, what steps must be taken to correct this situation? Who manages the money within the family? Is his/her standard of living consistent with visible means of support? 13. Religion: This section should be Included only If the offender's Involvement with religious groups CSO—2 ' * 291 OOCXWCNT TYW t PROCEDURE C F F C C T I V * D A T E April 1, 1980 N U M Q C R OP-BFS-71.01 p*ce or agneA U /iN S T. NimmeN turefeeoes mo. OP-BFS-71.01 OP-BFS-71.02 and situations 1s a significant part of his/her life. It is particularly significant if religious affiliation can provide assistance In any reso cialization program. If so, the program can be briefly described. SHORT FORM PRE-SENTENCE REPORT 11. In this format, the form CFO-145 constitutes the majority of the report. Attached to It will be the Basic Information Report, CF0-101, separate sheets with the investigator's and offender's versions of the offense, and other attachments as are deemed appropriate. Again, the report will be segmented Into three parts: Summary, Evaluation and Plan, and Recommendation, as 1n the long form- DISTRIBUTION Distributions are made of pre-sentence Investigations, based on the type of crime and disposition. The following schedule, for prlsonable and nonprisonable offenses, will apply and should be referred to by stenographers prior to transcription of the report. In most jurisdictions Departmental copies are provided to the Sheriff for delivery with the prisoner. They are delivered or mailed, to the addresses given below. Prlsonable Offenses A total of six ( 6) copies are needed. Two are for the court and the agent's file. Four (4) copies are forwarded to: Males Has not reached 21st blrthdate as of date of delivery to Department of Corrections. Riverside Reception Center 777 West Riverside Drive Ionia, Michigan 48846 Has reached 21st blrthdate as of date of delivery: Reception and Guidance Center 4000 Cooper Street Jackson, Michigan 49201 292 1 d o o#« nt tvwc PROCEDURE • r r t C T I V * o»re April 1, 1980 number 0P-BFS-71.01 wAoe IQ or J2___ I auRCAU/INlT. MUMien l L_______ c u p c m e oes n o . 0P-BFS-71.01 OP-BFS-71.02 AUTHORITY: APPROVED: ; i l l ,RKN:DH:cjr , ,4/1/80 Females: Supervisor of Records Huron Valley Women's Facility 3511 Bemls Road Ypsllantl, MI 48197 Should the case be disposed of by probation or delay of sentence, the four Institutional copies are stored. If discharge and case termination occur, they may be destroyed. If violation and sen tence occur, they will be updated and forwarded as above. (Copying equipment may make preparation and storage of the addi tional copies not necessary.) Honprlsonable Offense Make two copies; one for the court and one for the agent's file. MCLA 791.222 et seq. MCLA 771.14 as amended. <///*> Date R^cliaT3 K.~Nelson, Deputy Director Bureau of Field Services C S O -3 1 * T9J o o c u k £ N T T y r e PROCEDURE e f f e c t i v e q a t e April 1, 1980 NUM BER 0P-BFS-71.01 PAGE 11 or 17 B U R E A U /IN S T . NUMBER . SUPERSEDES NO. 0P-BFS-71.01 0P-BFS-71.02 DAiy ELEMENT DEFINITIONS The definitions listed below are used for the Basic Information Report. All blanks should be filled in and the following abbre viations should be used when Information 1s unavailable: none - 0, unknown - unk, not applicable - N/A. Space has been provided for two offenses, as well as two dispositions. Additional pages should be attached as needed. 1. MICHIGAN PRISON NUMBER - Enter the number assigned by the Michigan Department of Corrections If the Individual 1s or was a Michigan Inmate. 2. COURT NAME - Last, first, middle as listed on court documents. 11st aliases after the court name with the designation AKA. Malden names should be preceded by "NEE." 3. MICHIGAN PROBATION NUMBER - This number will be assigned to each probationer In the state at a later date by CMIS. 4. REAL NAME - List the client's legal name If different from court name, 1f not write same. 5. LAST KNOWN ADDRESS - Indicate the last known address. Include the client's zip code, and telephone number 1f available. 6. PLACE OF BIRTH - Indicate place of birth by city and state, or city and foreign country. 7. COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP - List client's country of citizenship. 8. DATE OF BIRTH - Indicate client's date of birth by month, day, year. 9. MICHIGAN DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER - Enter the client's Michigan Driver's License Number. 10. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER - Indicate client's social security number. If data 1s not available, write unknown. 11. MICHIGAN STATE BUREAU NUMBER - Indicate client's Michigan State Bureau Identification number, also known as SID number. If a number has not been assigned, write none. 294 T 1O OCUM ENT T T P e PROCEDURE E F F E C T IV E Q A TE April 1, 1980 NUM BER OP-8FS-71.01 rack 12 or __ ^ B U R C A U /IM S T . NUMBER SUPERSEDES NO. 0P-BFS-71.01 0P-BFS-71.02 12. FBI NUMBER - List client’s assigned Federal Bureau of Investigation Identification number or none. 13. LOCAL POLICE AGENCY AND NUMBER - Indicate the police agency that arrested the client for the Instant offense, and also list the number which they assigned to him/her. 14. PHYSICAL PROBLEMS - Check ”yes" 1f client has any physical defects or Illnesses which would limit physical activity. These problems should be further discussed 1n the body of the pre-sentence report under Mental and Physical Health. 15. MARITAL STATUS - Indicate status at the time of arrest: single (never married), married, common law marriage, separated, divorced, widow(er), other, unknown. 16. DEPENDENTS - Indicate number of persons legally dependent financially on the client for support. Include all depen dents for whom the client was ordered to pay support, even though he/she may be delinquent in these payments. 17. HIGHEST GRADE - Indicate highest grade completed from K-12. Also indicate 1f client received a General Equivalent Diploma (GED). If client has completed some college 11st this also, (i.e., 2 years college). 18. RACE - White, Black, Indian, Chinese, Asian, Japanese, Mexican, Other. 19. SEX - M or F. 20. HAIR - Color of hair: black, brown, blonde, red, gray, white, bald. 21. EYES - Color of eyes: brown, blue, green, hazel. 22. HEIGHT - The client's height is recorded in feet and to the nearest Inch. 23. WEIGHT - Record weight to the nearest pound. 24. BUILO - Describe build as: thin, medium, husky. 25. COMPLEXION - Color of skin: light, medium, dark. 26. OCCUPATION - Indicate the client's predominant work area, be as specific as possible. 295 OOCUMCHT TV PROCEDURE errecnv* d a t e April 1, 1980 NUM BER 0P-BFS-71.01 p * G « ____L3 or 17 ■ B U R E A U /IN S T . NUMBER L _ SUPERSEDES NO. 0P-BF5-71.01 0P-BFS-71.02 EXAMPLE: Welder - Janitor Assembler Mason Trucker Rather than "Laborer" Shoe Salesman Industrial Sales Real Estate Sales Auto Sales Insurance Sales Rather than "Salesman" 27. VISIBLE SCARS, MARKS, TATTOOS - Indicate in the following manner: TYPE scar mark tattoo LOCATION left ri ght front back BODY PART face arm head hand neck leg torso foot 28. EXAMPLE: tattoo, left, arm scar, front, torso HEALTH INSURANCE - Indicate whether or not the client has his/her own health insurance policy, or is covered under someone else's policy, such as a parent or spouse. The policy holder and insurance company name should be noted in the Mental and Physical Health section of the PSI. The Office of Health Care Services requested this information in an attempt to recover health care costs incurred by inmates. 29. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE - Indicate if the client is receiving any public assistance; i.e., ADC, unemployment, disability. The amount and type of assistance should be recorded in the body of the pre-sentence report under Economic Situation. 30. ASSETS OVER $1,500 - Indicate if the client has assets over $1,500 at the time the report 1s prepared. Details should be included in the Economic Situation section of the pre sentence report. This question is included because of the prison reimbursement act, which requires the Department of Corrections to provide the Auditor General with a list of residents' names with assets over $1,500. After further investigation, the Auditor General may then sue the inmate to recover al 1 or part of the cost of incarceration. The agent is not expected to obtain specific financial records, but rather should question the client about financial holdings and property, and make observations during the course of the investigation. 296 d o c u m e n t t y p e PROCEDURE E F F E C T IV E B A T E April 1, 1980 0P-8FS-71.01 B U R E A U /IN S T . NUMBER •**<*_ _ 14 o ' 17 SUPERSEDES NO. 0P-BFS-71.01 0P-BF5-71.02 31. KNOWN DRUG USE - Indicate "yes" If the client admits to regu lar use of controlled substances, or has a conviction for use or possession of controlled substances. (Disregard experi mentation with marijuana). 32. KNOWN ALCOHOL USE - Indicate "yes" alcohol has disrupted his/her life. 1f the client's use of 33. KNOWN HOMOSEXUAL - Indicate "yes" If client states that he/she Is or was a Known homosexual, or was ever segregated as such In a penal Institution. 34. MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT - Indicate whether or not the subject has ever been a mental health patient, has had mental health treatment, or an examination. Details should be Included In the Mental and Physical Health section of the pre-sentence report. 35. MILITARY SERVICE NO., BRANCH - Indicate United States Military Service Number and Branch (A1r Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, Reserves) of Service. Indicate none, or unknown, 1f applicable. 36. FROM - Indicate date of entry Into the military. 37. TO - Indicate date of discharge or separation from military service. 38. DISCHARGE TYPE - Indicate the type of discharge; I.e., Honorable, general, undesirable, bad conduct, dishonorable, pending, unknown. 39. RELIGION - Indicate client's religious affiliation or none or unknown. 40. JUVENILE COMMITMENT - Indicate the number of previous commit ments to the boy's/girl's training school of the Department of Social Services, and any other Juvenile facility, or a county jail juvenile sentence. 41. JUVENILE PROBATION - Number of times client has been offi cially placed on juvenile probation. 42. JUVENILE ESCAPE - Indicate total number of juvenile escapes from boy's training school, girl's training school, other juvenile facilities, or county jails. Include walkaways and 11st any escape behavior even If not prosecuted. c*o—» l * 297 OOCUMENT type PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE DATE April 1, 1980 NUMBER OP-BFS-71.01 RACE 15 O F J J ____ I b u r e a u /inst. mummer L SUPERSEDES NO. OP-BFS-71.01 OP-BFS-71.02 43. ADULT JAIL - Indicate the number of Jail terms served. The desired Information 1s the number of times the offender has been sent to jail, not the number of sentences. 44. ADULT PRISON - Indicate the number of different times In pri son regardless of jurisdiction. The desired Information Is the number of times the offender has been sent to prison, not the number of sentences. Do not count parole violators who are returned, but parolees who receive a new sentence should be counted. 45. ADULT PROBATION - Indicate the number of times the client has been officially placed on adult probation, Include felonies and misdemeanors, youthful ‘trainees, probation under Sec. 7411 (formerly Section 47), and delayed sentences which are supervised under court order. Do not Include supervision under pre-trial diversion or pre-prosecut1on programs. 46. ADULT ESCAPES - Indicate total number of adult escapes from prison, county jails, corrections centers, and resident homes. List all escape behavior, even If not charged or prosecuted. Details should be provided within the body of the report. 47. CURRENT STATUS - Check the appropriate box which Indicates the type of supervision which the client Is under at the time the report is completed. If the client Is under probation to federal authorities, check the box entitled "Probation, circuit." 48. SEX OFFENSE CONVICTIONS - Indicate total number of convic tions for sexually deviant behavior, such as Indecent liberties, criminal sexual conduct, gross Indecency, etc. 49. PENDING CHARGES - Indicate 1f the client has any charges pending at the time the report 1s prepared. Details of these charges should appear 1n the summary of the report to the court. Do not include those charges which are a part of the plea bargain for the Instant offense and will be dismissed 60 days after sentencing. 50. DOCKET NUM8ER - The number assigned by the court to the respective case. 51. OFFENSE - Indicate the charge of which the defendant Is con victed. cao-21* j 298 XCJJMCHT TYRE PROCEDURE » EFFECTIVE DATE April 1, 1980 NUMBER 0P-BFS-)l‘ .01 ‘ _]Jx o f 17 I BUREAU/INST. NUMBER s u p e rs e d e s mo. 1 OP-BFS-71.01 8 OP-BFS-71.02 | 52. COMPILED LAW NUMBER - Indicate the number of the offense of which the defendant 1s convicted. When necessary. Include the attempt statute. 53. MAXIMUM PENALTY - Indicate the maximum penalty allowed by the law for the offense. 54. CIRCUIT COURT NUMBER - Indicate the circuit court number of the court Imposing sentence. 55. COOEFENDANT(s) - Indicate names of adult codefendants who have been charged with the same offense, and 11st the status of these cases. List all adults charged, even 1f a different court or docket number is used. 56. OFFENSE DATE - Indicate date offense occurred. 57. YICTIM NAME, RELATIONSHIP - Indicate the name and the rela tionship of the victim to the client If any. If It Is felt that the listing of the victim's name would place him/her 1n Jeopardy, It should be omitted. 58. ARREST DATE - Indicate date client was arrested. 59. ATTORNEY - Indicate name of attorney handling the case and whether or not the attorney was retained or appointed. 60. DATE OF BOND - Indicate date posted. 61. CONVICTED BY - Place an X in the appropriate square of the method of conviction. Check HYTA If client has applied for status as a Youthful Trainee. 62. GUILTY/MENTALLY ILL - Enter an X In the appropriate box If client was found to be guilty, but mentally 111. 63. CONVICTION DATE - Indicate date client was convicted. 64. JAIL CREDIT OAYS - Indicate the number of days of Jail credit a defendant should receive against the sentence. 65. SENTENCING JUDGE - Name of the Judge presiding over case at the time of sentencing. 66. DATE REPORT COMPLETED - Indicate the date the pre-sentence report is dicated. All of the Information contained In It should be accurate as of this date. ii ■ t - — ..... c»o-ai* 299 Appendix D 1983 Procedure Statement E F F E C T IV E O A T E N U M B E R PROCEDURE M IC H IG A N D E P A R TM E N T OF C O R R EC TIO N S Bureau of Field Services 3/1/83 OP-BFS-71.01 C S O - ilJ f t * . . 3 ,5 2 ' SUBJECT PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION/DISTRIBUTION P A G E ^ OF15 supenseoes, op.B FS -71.01 (4/1/81) OBJECTIVE: To provide written guidelines for completing the pre-sentence investigation, the preparation and content of the report, and its distribution. INFORMATION: MCLA 771.14 requires that a pre-sentence report be prepared in every case in which a person is convicted of a felony. In People v. Brown, 393, Mich. 174, the Supreme Court held that | even if a defendant does not wish a pre-sentence report, a felony defendant may not waive preparation of the report. The Court of Appeals, in People v. Triplett, held “that a reasonably updated pre-sentence report is necessary in resentencing a I : defendant." The court followed the same reasoning in Peop1e v. j Perez in that, "The manner and circumstances under which an offense is coirmitted may well influence the degree of the sen- i tence imposed." In People v. Kenneth Anderson, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new pre-sentence investigation in resentencing because the court did hot have at its disposal |j an official version of the offense and the offender's version. | l As indicated by the above cases, the pre-sentence report has a jj primary role in providing the sentencing court with timely, jj relevant and accurate data so that it may select the most ; i appropriate sentencing alternative. j TIMELINESS 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ! J Normally, the pre-sentence investigation is prepared after the j! defendant has been found guilty, however, occasionally, in the i interest of both the court and the defendant, the investigation j is conducted prior to adjudication, as in investigations for | Holmes Youthful Trainee consideration. In these cases, the pro- | bation agent should ensure that the defendant has consented on ; advice of counsel to allow the investigation. j I Pre-sentence reports should be completed within three weeks of i referral for confined offenders and four weeks for offenders on | bond unless unusual circumstances delay completion, or the court j requires a more stringent schedule. They should be submitted to the court a minimum of two working days prior to sentencing unless local conditions dictate otherwise. This allows the judge sufficient time to review the report and, in accordance with GCR 785.12 and PA 61, 1982, make the report available for review by defense counsel and defendant. FORMS USED: CFO-145 - Pre-Sentence Investigation Report CF0-101 - Basic Information Report I I 300 D O C U M E N T T Y P E | E F F E C T I V E O A T E J N U M B E R ! I PROCEDURE 1/1/83 j 0P-8FS-71.01 i p a g e 2 o p 15 DISCLOSURE AND CHALLENGES TO INFORMATION Under the provisions of GCR 785.12 and PA 61, 1982, effective 4/1/83, the Court must permit the prosecutor, the defendant's attorney, and the defendant to review the PSI prior to sen tencing. While nonprofessional staff (paraprofessionals, volunteers, stu dent interns, etc.) may be used by the field agent to collect certain PSI information, the field agent must sign the report and is responsible for the accuracy of all information included in the report. MVerification of information in the report is critical becauser of the report's importance to sentencing and the fact that the information may be challenged at sentencing by the defendant's attorney or defendant. If the court finds that challenged information is inaccurate or irrelevant, that finding will be made part of the court record, and the inaccurate or irrelevant information must be stricken from the report prior to distribution. | Although the court may exempt from disclosure Information or a diagnostic opinion which might seriously disrupt a program of rehabilitation or sources of information obtained on a promise of confidentiality, agents must be very careful in making any promise of confidentiality to a source of information. Any information exempted from disclosure by the court must be speci fically noted in the PSl and is subject to appellate review. Agents therefore must ensure that they do not make promises of confidentiality that cannot be kept, and that they inform sour ces of the limits of confidentiality under the statute. WRITING THE PSI In writing the report, ensure that your statements are clear, concise and accurate. Avoid repeating information whenever possible. If specific information is based on the defendant's statements, or some other individual's statements, report as such, i.e., "defendant states." For verification and case planning purposes, field agents shall retain in the case file, the investigation notes used in the preparation of the PSI. SUPERVISOR APPROVAL To ensure that the pre-sentence report and recommendations are in accordance with statutes, policies, objectives and procedures of the Department, the PSI shall be reviewed by a supervisor whenever possible prior to submission to the court. FORM OF THE PSI MCLA 771.223 and MCLA 771.4 provide that the Deputy Oirector, Department of Corrections, Bureau of Field Services, shall 301 (D O C U M E N T T V P C 1 E F F E C T I V E O A T E J N U M B E R PROCEDURE i 3/1/83 | OP-BFS-71.01 j face 3 of 15 I 1 • I prescribe the form of the pre-sentence investigation. Based on continuing review of the pre-sentence process, new statutes, case law and the availability of resources, the following format is prescribed for all cases: Required Sections 1. Pre-sentence Investigation Report Form, CFO-145 2. Evaluation and Plan 3. Investigator's Description of the Offense 4. Defendant's Description of the Offense 5. Prior Criminal Record 6. Marriage and Family 7. Basic Information Report Form, CF0-101 Additional Background Sections A. Employment and Economic Status B. Education C. Substance Abuse D. Mental and Physical Health These sections shall be included if the information is signifi- ! cant to sentencing the defendant and the important facts are not sufficiently explained in other sections of the PSI. Otherwise, J they should not be included in the report. 1 ! Instructions for completing CFO-145 and mandatory sections: ! 1. CFO-145 - Copy Attached I j HONORABLE - Sentencing judge, j COUNTY - County in which conviction occurred.. j SENTENCE OATE - Date set for sentencing. I DOCKET - Docket number(s) for current convictions, i ATTORNEY - Defendant's defense counsel, if none, put none. ! APPOINTED - Please put an (x) if defendant has appointed j counsel. RETAINED - Place an (x) if defendant has retained counsel. DEFENDANT - Name under which defendant was convicted. AGE - Defendant’s age at time PSI is completed. 0.0.B. - Defendant's date of birth. FINAL CHARGE(S) - List the current convictions on which PSI • is being prepared. MAX - List statutory maximum sentences for final charges. JAIL CREDIT - State number of days of jail custody for each final charge as of sentence date, j BOND - Put “yes" if on bond for the final charge; put "no" j if not on bond for the final charge. j PROPOSAL B - If the final charge is a crime governed by | Proposal B (see attached list), place a "yes" on the ! line; if not governed by Proposal B, put "no" on the line. 1 PLEA - If convicted by plea, place an (x) on that line. | | JURY - If convicted by jury, place an (x) on that line. J 302 D O C U M E N T T Y P E E F F E C T I V E O A T E I N U M B E R i PROCEDURE 3/1/83 j OP-BFS-71.01 | P A G E i 4 O F 15 JUDGE - If convicted by judge, place an (x) on that line. PLEA UNDER ADVISEMENT - If the plea has been taken under advisement by the judge, place an (x} on that line. NOLO CONTENDERE - If convicted by plea of nolo contendere, place an (x) on that line. HYTA - If the defendant is being sentenced under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, place an (x) on the yes line, if not, place an (x) on the no line. CONVICTION DATE - Date of current conviction. PLEA AGREEMENT - State briefly the agreement if one exists, otherwise put none. PENDING CHARGES - If pending charges exist, state charges. WHERE - State county of pending charges; if another state, identi fy that state. FELONIES - State number of prior felony convictions. MISDEMEANORS - State number of prior misdemeanor convic tions, excluding traffic cases. JUVENILE RECORD - If the defendant has a prior juvenile record, place an (x) on the yes line. If the defendant has no prior juvenile record, place an (x) on the no 1 ine. PROBATION - If defendant is currently on felony probation, place an (x) on the active line, if not currently on pro bation but was previously, place an (x) on the former line. If currently on probation and there are violation charges pending, place an (x) on the pending violation line. PAROLE - Complete in the same manner as with probation above. CURRENT MICHIGAN PRISONER - If defendant is currently on prisoner status, put an (x) on the yes line and enter the prisoner's prison number. If not a current prisoner, put an (x) on the no line. CURRENTLY UNDER SENTENCE - If defendant is currently under circuit court sentence, put in the offense and sentence. EDUCATION - State highest grade completed, or if appropri ate, high school graduate, GED, bachelor's degree, etc. EMPLOYED - If currently employed, put "yes" on the line, if not, put “no" on the line. WHERE - If employed, state employer's name, and city. PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY - If defendant has a history of psychi atric illness or hospitalization, place an (x) on the yes line and explain further in the PSI narrative; if no history, place an (x) on the no line. PHYSICAL HANDICAPS - If defendant currently has physical handicaps, place an (x) on the yes line and explain further in the PSI narrative; if not, place an (x) on the no line. MARITAL STATUS - State whether defendant is married, separated, divorced, or single. SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY - If the defendant has a history of controlled substance abuse, place an (x) on the yes line, state what tne substance is, the duration of his/her use, and explain further in the PSI narrative; if no history, olace an fxl on the no line. 303 I E F F E C T I V E O A T E [ N U M B E R ' j 3/1/83 | OP-BFS-71.01 ! PAGE 5 15 _________I ■ 1 ___________ RECOMMENDATION Public Act 81 of 1979 requires that a specific written recommen dation for disposition be included in the PSI. Department policy requires that offenders be placed in the least restric tive environment that provides for the public safety. There fore, agents should recommend prison sentences only when required by law or when no alternative community sentence will provide for public protection. Alternative sentencing programs such as probation, jail time, restitution, community service orders, halfway house placement, fines, mental health or substance abuse therapy, etc., should be utilized whenever possible. If restitution is recommended, specific payment amounts and a payment schedule should be stated if possible. In recommending restitution, the defendant's ability to pay must be considered and alternative community service orders should be suggested if appropriate. If probation is recommended, special conditions should be iden tified where applicable. Such conditions must be specific, tailored to the needs of the defendant and supported by the information in the PSI. REQUIRED SECTIONS 2. EVALUATION AND PLAN: State your analysis of the defendant's strengths, weaknesses, abilities, readiness for improvement, and established behavior patterns based on the factual material obtained in the investigation. If you have not included the employment background section in the PSI, include in your evaluation a statement regarding the defendant's employment history and current employability. In cases where there was property loss or medical expenses incurred by the victim, a statement of total restitution amounts must be made whether recommended or not. Also, the defendant's ability to pay must be described and the name and address of the restitution recipient indicated, if not harmful to the victim. The conclusions drawn from your evaluation must logically support the recommendation stated on CFO-145. If probation is recommended, state briefly the initial plan as to residence, employment or alterative programming. 3. INVESTIGATOR'S DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE: Describe in brief, clear statements the facts of the offense. If the defendant resisted or fled from officers during arrest, a short description should be given. If the conviction is for a controlled substance offense, state specific amounts of drugs for which convicted. Briefly state the victim's age, injuries received, and whether s/he was held captive during the crime. If the instant offense is one of a series or the defendant admits being involved in other cri minal offenses, that should be briefly described. The names and current status of codefendants must be included. O O C O M E N T T Y P E PROCEDURE 304 D O C U M E N T T Y R E PROCEDURE E F F E C T I V E O A T E 3/1/83 n u m b e r OP-BFS-71.01 15 If possible, the victim shall be contacted to obtain his/her feelings about the offense, disposition, and possible restitution. Ensure that the victim understands that information in the PSI is disclosed to the defendant unless the judge specifically exempts it. 4. DEFENDANT'S VERSION OF THE OFFENSE: This section should be a statement in the defendant's own words of what happened and why. If the defendant is unable to write or his/her statement is excessively long, the agent may paraphrase the information. If the defendant agrees with the investi gator's version, so state and do not repeat the infor mation. If the defendant does not wish to discuss the offense, so state. 5. PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD: Separate this section into two parts, juvenile and adult. Information should be presented in a "rap sheet" type of format where possible. Entries should include date of arrest, charge, disposition, whether represented or not represented by counsel, and date of discharge from sentence where available. Arrests not resulting in conviction may be included if so noted, see People v. Gunter, 76 Mich. App. 483, 1977. All arrests and convictions reported are to be reviewed with the defendant to obtain his/her verification if possible. The juvenile court history will be listed first and shall include all felony arrests, official adjudicated disposi tions and unofficial dispositions. local police depart ments, juvenile officers, or juvenile bureaus should be contacted and their records reviewed as well as the records of probate court. If institutionalized, include a state ment on adjustment and escape or walkaway history, if known. With the adult record, list all felony arrests and convic tions and all misdemeanor convictions, except traffic cases. If official pending charges exist, they should be stated and any prosecution agreement described. If the defendant admits involvement in pending charges, that should be noted. If currently or previously in prison, on parole, or on probation, indicate adjustment including revocations if known. 6. MARRIAGE ANO FAMILY: List the name, relationship, age and address (city-state) of the defendent's immediate family and any other relatives who were an important part of the offender's development. Include spouse, step-siblings, half siblings, and state the married name of females, where appropriate. Briefly report the significant facts of the defendant's marital relationships, or other living arrangements as they relate to his/her past behavior or expected future adjust ment. Include court ordered support payments if they exist. 305 D O C U M E N T T V PROCEDURE E F F E C T I V E D A T E 3/1/83 I N U M B E R I I 0P-8FS-71.01 ; p a g e 7 o f 1 5 7. BASIC INFORMATION REPORT FORM, CF0-101 (copy attached): Instructions on data elements begin on page 9 of this procedure; this form should be the last page in the PSI. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND SECTIONS A. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC STATUS: Report defendant’s market able skills and any pertinent vocational training received. State employer's evaluation of defendant if significant, and indicate defendant's future employability. Describe any assets that exceed $1,500. B. EDUCATION: Report significant impediments to educational achievement, specialized training received, and attitude towards school if the PSI is being completed on a youthful offender and/or is pertinent to sentencing or the com mission of the offense. C. SUBSTANCE ABUSE: State any substantial history of drug or alcohol abuse as it relates to his/her past behavior and/or criminal acts, and expected future adjustment. Report significant treatment received and attitude towards change. D. MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH: State any physical or mental condition which is pertinent to sentencing, criminal behav ior, or expected future adjustment. Report psychiatric hospitalizations and attach evaluation reports. Psychiatric reports must be treated as confidential. MULTIPLE CONVICTION CASES For clients with multiple convictions, only one PSI should be prepared, which would include information on all convictions for which the defendant is currently being sentenced. PSI's for Defendant's Who Have Had Another PSI Completed Within the Preceding Three YeaTT In these cases, include a new CFO-145, evaluation and plan, investigator's description, defendant's description, and CF0-I01. The other sections should be updated as necessary and reference made to the previously completed PSI, as appropriate. The previous PSI should be attached if referred to in the new PSI. PSI Updates for Delayed Sentence Cases, HYTA's, and Probation Violators When it is necessary to do these reports, they should only include significant new information not contained in the origi nal PSI. These reports will be considered special investiga tions for workload accounting' purposes. 306 DOCUMENT TYPE E F F E C T I V E O A T E N U M B E R •riwoKr* OP-BFS-71.01 , page 8 op 15 PROCEDURE 3/1/83 AUTHORITY: ACA STANDARDS: APPROVED: DISTRIBUTION The Pre-Sentence Investigation Report will normally be prepared as an original and one copy, the original being forwarded to the court for its consideration, and a copy retained in the office file. If the defendant is sentenced to prison, four additional copies shall be made and provided to the Sheriff for delivery with the defendant to the appropriate Departmental reception center. If for some reason copies are not provided to the Sheriff for delivery, they should be mailed as specified below. Has not reached 21st birthday as of date of delivery to Department of Corrections: Riverside Reception Center, 777 West Riverside Drive, Ionia, Michigan 48846. Has reached 21st birthday as of date of delivery: Reception and Guidance Center, 4000 Cooper Street, Jackson, Michigan 49201. Supervisor of Records, Huron Valley Women's Facility, 3511 Bemis Road, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197. MCLA 791.223; MCLA 771.14; MCLA 771.3 2-3185-3188; 2-3190-3193; 2-3195-3201 Males Females Richlrd K. Nelson, Deputy Director Date Bureau of Field Services RKN:TLP:cjb 2/1/83 307 Appendix E Dictator's Guide to Writing the Procedure Statement REQUIRED SECTIONS CFO-145 fSee Attached) RECOMMENDATION SECTION (CFO-145) What is your basic recommendation? Prison? If so, is that required by law? Or is recommended because there are no alternatives provide public protection? it to Not prison? Then what specific alternatives and under what recommended conditions? Probation? Under what special conditions? specific, consider the needs of the defendant, be sure your recommendations are supported by information in the PSI. Be and the Restitution? What amounts and schedule do recommend? Can the defendant manage it? alternative community service in order? you Is Basically what conclusions have you drawn during the investigation that lead you to make that recommendation? (Keep it brief.) EVALUATION AND PLAN SECTION What is your evaluation? (one to three paragraphs) What are the defendant's strengths? What are the defendant's weaknesses? What is the prognosis for the future^? What is your plan? (one paragraph if possible) If probation is recommended, what do you recommend in terms of residence, employment, and alternative programming? If there was property loss or medical expense incurred by a victim, what is the total restitution amount (whether recommended or not)? Is the defendant able to pay? What is the name and address of the person(s) to receive restitution? 308 INVESTIGATOR'S PESCRIPTIQN Q£ THE OFFENSE Briefly, what are the ESSENTIAL facts of the offense? Time? Place? Method of commission? Participation by others? Results of the act(s)? Identification of victim(s}? Some additional facts MAY be necessary. Do any of these apply? Was the arrest routine? If not, explain. Is this offense one of a series? If so, explain. Are there co-defendants? If so, names, current status? Are there charges pending in other jurisdictions? If so, explain. What about the victim(s)? Injuries? Statements? Disposition? Restitution? If the offence was a controlled substance offense, what specific amounts were involved? DEFENDANT’S PESCRIPTIQN Q£ THE QEEEflSE ' Did the defendant explain what happened and why? (If so, quote it.) If the defendant cannot write or if the statement is too long, can the statement be paraphrased to explain what happened and why? Does the defendant accept the paraphrase? If so, say so. Is the defendant unwilling to discuss the offense? If so, say so. 309 PRIOR CRIMINAL RfiCQSR Is there a juvenile felony record? If so, put in chronological list format: Date of arrest, Charge, Disposition, Counsel, Date of discharge. Is there an adult felony and misdemeanor record? If so, put in chronological list format: Date of arrest, Charge, Disposition, Counsel, Date of discharge. Were there arrests which did not result in convictions? (This may be included, but need not be.) Juvenile Adult M E FAMILY In list form, who are the defendant's parents, spouse, offspring, siblings, step-siblings, and half-siblings? Relationship, name, age, address. Are there other significant family facts relating to past behavior or future adjustment? Living arrangements? Support payments? CF-101 (See Attached) 310 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND SECTIONS EMPLOYMENT M D ECONOMIC STATUS Two or three recent jobs? Title, Place, Pay, Reason for leaving, Supervisor's evaluation Skills and training? Assets over $1500? EDUCATION Is this a youthful offender or is education pertinent to the offense and sentencing? Educational level? Specialized training? Attitude? Impediments? SUBSTA.N.CE ABQSE Is drug or alcohol history pertinent to past behavior or future adjustment? If so, what is that history? What treatment has been received? With what success? What is the defendant's attitude toward that treatment? MENTAL AND EHYSICAL HEALTH Is health a pertinent factor in past behavior or future adjustment? If so, what health limitations are there? What treatments have been received? What reports are available? (attach) CFQ-14,5 Judge? County? Sentence Date? Docket number(s)? Attorney's name? Appointed? Retained? Defendant's Name? Age? Date of Birth? Charges? Maximum Sentences? Jail Credit in days? Amount of Bond? Is the Charge governed by Proposal B? Plea? Convicted by jury? Convicted by judge? Plea under advisement? Nolo Contendere? Sentencing under HYTA? Conviction Date? Plea agreement? Pending charges? Where? (County and State) Number of prior felony convictions? Number of prior misdemeanor convictions? Does the defendant have a juvenile record? Is the defendant currently on felony probation? Is the defendant currently on parole? Is the defendant currently a Michigan prisoner? Number? Is the defendant currently under circuit court sentence? Highest educational level completed? Employed? Where? (Employer's name, city) History of psychiatric illness or hospitalization? Physical handicaps? Marital status? Substance abuse history? What? How long?> CFQ-1Q1 Michigan Prison Number? Client's court name? Michigan Probation Number? Client's real name? Last known address? 311 What? 312 Birth place? Citizenship? Birth date? Driver's license number? Social Security number? Michigan State Bureau number? FBI number? Local police agency and number? Physical defects or illnesses? Marital status? Defendants? Highest Grade? Race? Sex? Hair? Eyes? Height? Weight? Build? Complexion? Occupation? Scars, marks, tattoos? Health insurance? Public assistance? Assets over $1500? Known drug use? Known alcohol use? Known homosexuality? Mental health treatment? Military service number and branch? Entered military? Left military? Type of discharge? Religion? Juvenile committments? Juvenile probation? Juvenile escape? Adult jail terms served? Adult prison terms served? Times on probation? Escapes? Current status? Convictions for sex offenses? Pending charges? Docket number? 313 Offense? Compiled law number? Maximum penalty? Circuit court number? Co-defendant(s)? Date of offense? Victim names and relationship? Arrest date? Attorney, retained or appointed? Date of bond? Convicted by? Guilty/mentally ill? Conviction date? Jail credit days? Sentencing judge? PSI report date? County of sentence? Agent's name? Caseload number? Recommended disposition? I 1. No recommendation 2. Jail term, fine, cost, restitution, or a combination 3. Probation 4. Prison 5. Case not referred for pre-sentence investigation Y. Youthful trainee— probation C. Youthful trainee— prison D. Delayed sentence 0. Other Type of sentence? Sentence date? Minimum sentence term? Maximum sentence term? Fines? Costs? Restitution? County jail term? 314 Appendix F Sample Presentence Investigations 1978 3-3A-70 t;_ y _ Yob To C.D. ',*-10-73 OF IG1HAL: ITiD/'CFi'T rXPCrUPM g u i l t y : urD];ci:;.'T j - j x p o . ur:£ PLIABED G U ILTY DEFOIE KOK. MIC HALL J . COUHGK cn Borro Defendant's f.tctenent: The defendant statco that the police report Is basically correct. ho nnds that he re-acts in this sinner when he is under tendon, he Is trying to overdone hlc problen end Is under treatment. Pending Cases: Violation of probation warrant has been submitted on Docket Indecent Exposure, two year3 probation, Hon. Ssckrround r-u.Tnvery: ■ - . Tho defendant is » ?S-ycar-old native of Detroit, Michigan. He was raised by both parents in an apparently Btable environment. However, there io a prior report that on one occasion, prior to his teenage yt-are, the defendant ret fire to the house. This was an net of hort ility toward his parents. The defendant graduated from nigh School He then attended University for years. He also attended Community College for four month3, ending, in June, 19^9. The defendant never was in tha military service. On October 27, 1?70 the defendant married They had e son, age 10 years old. They were separated In 1973 find subsequently divorced. For the last four years the "■ defendant has resided with his girlfriend, Mary Ann On February 1978 they had a daughter born, The •*/ defendant's wife presently is on maternity leave froa lompany. The defendant and hla fnxlly have reeidei for 315 Docket No. LViiiC No. hovovcr, It 1c noted in a prior report that, prior to hie teenage yonra, the defendant cot lire to tho housa no .an net of hostility tovard his pa rente. Also, noi*t jvsyvhi.vfcria reports place f.c”.o blame for tho Gafati?.M'Axa problc-.D on ho velntionahip to hi;; mother. The defendant pie-;!. . h;-! from School in VjC-7* *’o then attended ' Uirlversi Ly for 1;; y<r.rr.. In addition he o ItendeJ Coll.-jgo, fox- four ifchs, ending In June 1?C$, ’ i ' * - ' ) defendant hever hos teen in military ser vice. Oft Oat oh or 1 5/0, the defon-Knt nr. ri'ic-d They had a eon, no;j C yenra old. The defend;-nt rn-i his v.-ifo vere ucpimtei in 1973 and cubceynently divorced. Tho defen dant is ordered to pay support through Friend of the Court, In the amount of i;5 per vock. For the luat five yea re, the defendant has resided vith hia girlfriend. May Ann . On Fc-bnniy 197?* they had a daughter, The defendant1 a vife 1c ge:? .toyed by Company. The defendant end his family have rer.idcd feu* yearn in an upper flat at Detroit. Precently, they are moving to a leer flat at , Detroit, Thlo 19 the caisa neighborhood. Tho defendant'a common-lm# vife has supported him throughout, his ordeal. The defen dant vas enployed for four years nt in tho computer tnpo library. His court involvements rinally cost him the job Ln tho middlo of 197?. He then v.orked for the In distribution, from September 197? to ’larch 1979. Ho vorked at , Trentcn, for threo v;ee!-:s in April 1979* but quit due to transuortfttion problems. On May 1^, 1979*. the defendant becon v - ’ ork at Steel. He e.arna $4 an hour. The defendant used drugs in 1972] fro a Do coir,her1972 until June 1573 ho van in House. There has been no drjg addiction since then. Urinalysis tests none on & random basis, have been negative for drug content. The defen dant indicates that in 197?* he used heroin on five occasions] they coincide vith his acts of indecent exposure. Ilie last use occurred on May ■ ! ( , 1979* The defendant's emotional problems apparently no;; arc being expressed through nets of indecent exposure. He has undergone extensive treatment for this] this hen included State Hospital, Docorder's Court Psychiatric Clinic, Hospital (in-patient), Dr, prescribed lithvirs carbonate end had. cood re sults; hovrevcr, i)r, died from a heart attack. The defendant was referred to the Center. The results vere good; hov- cvcr, it ic located in the Uoyno State University area and cor.pus police made continuance difficult. From late 1977 until January 1979* tho defendant cav; Dr. The doctor then v . - . o .arrested for an unrelated dcx offense. On January 31, 1979* the defendant began treatment vrith Dr. vho Ivan submitted an affidavit expressing hie findings and prognosis. 316 Pnac 3 iValwcfelon - continue3 the defendant-, It Ig felt that ibo public r.:ust ha protected fron the defendant's nets. Should centlnur-d probation bo considered for the defendant It In felt that it nhonld he in an In-patient psychiatric treatment facility, thin *.:ould provide intense treatment and also raeconcbly euarnntee completion of the treatment. Tabular probation ic not rccovcriendod. Pec o rumen < 5 a t Ion: In view of the above., It is respectfully re commanded thnt the dc-fenCan; be granted a period of probation vrlth the special instruction that ho commit himself for in-patient psychiatric treatment and remain until ssc die ally discharged. respectfully submitted, Probation Officer F.cviewcd Ey: Asoicta.no Supervisor R II/ e I Approved By: Supcrvlcor Drug 'Unit 317 1981 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - Bureau of Field Services . BASIC IN FO R M ATI O N REPO R T _____________ C F O - lO l R e v. 1 2 /7 9 ID E N T IF IC A T IO N D A T A I C H . P R IS O N N O . C O U R T N A M E ( L « * t, F irs t, M id d le * M iC H . P R O B A T IO N N O . R E A L N A M E P L A C E O F B IR T H Detroit, Michigan C O U N T R Y O F C IT IZ E N S H IP U.S.A. L A S T K N O W N A D D R E S S , T E L E P H O N E Detroitj Mich, no phone O A T E O F B IR T H 53 M IC H D R IV E R 'S L IC E N S E N O . S O C . S E C U R IT Y N O . L O C A L P O L IC E A G E N C Y & N O . Detroit P H Y S IC A L P R O B L E M S M A R I T A L S T A T U S O E P E N O E N T S L j Y e s [X jN o Married One H IG H E S T G R A O E 1 2 t h R A C E S E X H A IR E Y E S H E IG H T W E IG H r Q U iL O C O M P L E X . O C C U P A T IO N Blk Pem Brn Brn 5'7" 140 Thin Medium Sales S C A R S , M A R K S , T A T T O O S K N O W N O R U G U S E E ? 3 y« * 0no K N O W N A L C O H O L A B U S E 0No H E A L T H IN S U R A N C E y «« 0 n o P U B L IC A S S IS T A N C E 0 Y e » (X ]N o A S S E T S O V E R S 1 S 0 0 0 V « Q n o K N O W N H O M O S E X U A L Qyt 0NO [M E N T A L H E A L T H T R E A T M E N T I D y > « S n o M I L I T A R Y S E R . N O ., B R A N C H F R O M T O O tS C H A R C E T Y P E R E L IG IO N None - Baptist C R IM IN A L H IST O R Y J U V E N IL E C o m m . P ro o . Escape J a il * P ris o n P ro d . Escape - - - - - - ; £ x O F F E N S E C O N V IC T IO N S None P E N O IN G C H A R G E S □ Y« » C3n° C U R R E N T S T A T U S S 3 N o n e 0 H Y T A 0 P ro o a tJo n , c ir c u it 0 P ro b a tio n , d is tr ic t 0 O e ta ye d S a n ta n ca 0 P a ro ia n C o u n ty in m a te 0 S la t# in m a ta C U R R E N T O FFENSE O A TA ''o c k e t N o . 81- 04*21 O Hente Possession of Heroin C o m o . L a w N o . , 333-71 i032a4 M a x . P e n a lty 4 years C ir, C l. N o . C o m p . L a w N o . M a x . P e n a lty C lr. C t. N o . C o d e < e n d *n tt C o d e le n o a n ts DOCK4I N o . I None O H in ta Q a te 6-22-81 V ic tim (n a m e ) (R a ra tio n s n io i O ffe n s e O a ta V ic t im (n a m e ) (R e la tio n » m o j A rre s t O a ta 6- 30-81 X X A n e s t O a ta A p p o in te d R a ta in a d sona£ C o n v ic tio n O a ta 7-20-81 > N V IC T E O B Y : g ] p i „ Q ju rv 0 a . n c n Q N o lle C o n te n d e r* □ - • V T A 0 S . C . 7 4 1 1 O a ta o i B o n d C o n v ic tio n O a ta G lty /M e n ta i ill. 0 V a t f~ ]N a C O N V IC T E D B Y , 0 P l a a 0 J u o r 0 B e n c n 0 j N o i i a C o n te n d e re Q h y t A 0 S a c . 74 I j . ^ _____________ MY** ___ J a il C ta a n O a y j T w o ________ S e n te n c in g Ju d g e Ja il C re d it D ays S e n te n c in g Judge D a te R e o o it C o m p le te d 8-19-81 C o u n ty Wayas.. R e o o rt O n m o is tid B y C ase lo a d NO. DISPOSITION T Y P E O F S E N T E N C E | T E R M S O F S E N T E N C E C O U N T Y J A I L (P ro o .. p ris o n , h Y T A d e n y , Sac. / a n , F & C .| S E N T E N C E O A T E M IN IM U M M A X IM U M F IN E C O S T S R E S T IT . . Y rs M O i □ a y s Y rs M os M o t O a v t N O . 1 N O . 2 318 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS • Bureau ol Probation PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT C F O * 1 4 ft 2 / / 9 OFFENSE POSSESSION OF HEROIN Date AUGUST 21, 1981 To The Hon. Docket No. _ CAS£ NQ p Circuit Court Ol RECORDER'S COURT OF WAYNE County By_____ ____ _ ___________ _________ PENALTY: Sec. 333-74032A4 Your Honor: Imprisonment in the State Prison for no more than ^ years. SUMMARY: Defendant was arrested by the Detroit Police on June 30, 1981 and charged with Delivery of Heroin. She pled guilty on July 20, 1981 to Possession of Heroin. She was represented by appointed counsel, spent two days in custody, and was released on personal bond. This offense involves the purchase of heroin by an undercover policeman from the defendant on June 22, 1981. EVALUATION & PLAN: The defendant is a 28 year old, married, native of Detroit. She is ap pearing before the Court for sentencing, having pled guilty to Possess ion of Heroin. The defendant has no prior Youth Bureau record. No Juvenile Court record Is available due to the defendant's age. The defendant has no arrests without conviction. Her adult criminal record consists of: 9-10-76 arrested for Larceny From Building - Office,' Lincoln Park; 9-28-76, convicted of Larceny Under $100, 2b months proba tion, $100 fine. The defendant has no pending cases. The present offense involves the sale of two packs of heroin by the de fendant to an undercover policeman. There is no restitution. The defendant was raised by both parents in a stable environment in Detroit. She claims she graduated from Southwestern High School in PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIG ATION REPORT 319 SECTION ONE F- PAGE TWO EVALUATION & PLAN: CONTD. 1 9 6 9. School records Indicate she quit as over age in the ninth grade. At the age of 15, the defendant did spend one year at Vista Maria, an in-residence school. She was placed there by the parents due to truancy problems, according to the defendant. She never was in military service. The defendant married , age 31, on July 31, 1971. He is employed as a hi lo driv er at Company. They have one child, a boy, two years old. The defendant has worked off and on since she was 16 or 17 years old, at as a saleslady. She last was employed there in June, 19^1, Out is scheduled to re turn in the immediate future. The defendant and her family re side at Detroit. This was the parental home. It has been owned by the family for twenty-five years. The defend ant admits the past use of marijuana, amphetamine, barbiturates, valium, cocaine, and heroin. Marijuana and heroin have been the primary drugs of abuse. She first used marijuana at the age of 17. At various times, she has smoked it daily. At present, she uses it three to four times a week, the last time being a week prior to the within interview. Heroin is her major problem. She first tried it at the age of 18, by means of inhalation. This has been her only mode of use. Over the last ten years, she has had twelve different periods of addiction. The longest she has been drug free in these ten years was for one year. This occurred some time ago. The last time the defendant used heroin was 8-6-81, five days before the within Interview. The defendant states that she presently is withdrawing. She had been spending O to $70 per day to support her habit. The defendant never has been in a treatment program. However, she does feel that she has a drug problem. She is willing to enter an outpatient program. The defendant did not leave a urine specimen although one was re quested. The defendant also has indicated that her husband also has a history of drug use. The defendant's primary problem at present appears to be substance abuse. She now is involved with the courts due to this problem. There is question as to her sense of responsibility. She did not appear for the within interview until the fourth attempt by this writer. By her own admission, she is in the drug culture since all her acquaintances are involved with drugs. A further compli cation is that it is alleged that her husband also has a drug problem. However, the defendant now is asking for help. While her drug history is long, she has avoided intravenous use. It is felt that now may be an appropriate time for intervention in her life. She must be made to realize that she is responsible for her actions, for keeping appointments, whether at the Court or at any service agency. If she does not, inpatient care may have to be considered although care of her child may present a complication. 320 SECTION ONE p. PAGE THREE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, it is respectfully recommended that the defendant be given a period of two years probation with the special instruction that she enroll in the Boniface Drug Clinic, River Rouge, and remain until medically discharged, that she enter inpatient treatment if outpatient care is deemed unsuccessful;that she report weekly. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPROVED BY: REPORT PREPARED BY: ■3UHERVTS3K------------ uuURT DRUG UNIT PROBATION OFFICER 81 321 SECTION THREE PAGE ONE INVESTIGATOR'S DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE: On June 22, 1981, at 6:00 p.m., undercover police went to They spoke to the defendant regarding the purchase of heroin. The officer was told by the defendant to go around the corner to Francis and S. Fort. She would bring the heroin. Approximately three minutes later, the defendant met the offi cer at his vehicle and entered it. The officer gave $25 to the defendant and received two tin foil packs sealed in a package. After a short conversation regarding future purchase of heroin, they parted. Subsequent analysis of the contents of the package revealed the presence of heroin in the amount of 0.05 grams of heroin. On June 23, 1981 police executed a search warrant at but the defendant was not home. On June 29, 1981, the defendant came to the Narcotics Section and surrendered. RESTITUTION: None. CO-OFFENDER: None. OFFENDER'S DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE: "On Monday I was approached by a guy who said he bought drugs on a early date through some one else I knew, he said he couldn't find this person so I told him I'd sell him some on Fort Street which I did and thats what happened." Statement as written by the defendant. In further conversation, the defendant added that she has a drug problem. She was raising money to support her own drug habit. YOUTH BUREAU CONTACTS: None. JUVENILE COURT RECORD: None available due to the defendant's age. PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD: ARRESTS WITH CONVICTIONS: , Larceny from Building - Office, Lincoln Park, , convicted of Larceny Under $100, 2k months probation, $100 fine. ARRESTS WITHOUT CONVICTION: None. , 322 SECTION THREE PAGE TWO PREVIOUS PROBATION: The above-mentioned probation was handled on a local level. There was no direct supervision. However, the defendant did comply and the case was closed as scheduled. OFFENDER'S PERSONAL HISTORY: The defendant is a 28 year old native of Detroit, Michigan, born on 1953. Her father, died in ±975, at the age of 65, from a stroke. Her mother, , age 68, presently is in the Nursing Home. She is somewhat senile now. The defendant nas no brothers and sisters. The defendant was raised by both parents in the southwest Detroit area. Her father was employed as a parking lot attendant. The mother did domestic work and babysitting. The defendant states that their financial status was poor but they managed. The defen dant states that she enjoyed a good relationship with her father. However, she did not get along with her mother. She feels that it may have been because of the age gap. The mother was 40 years old when the defendant was born. The defendant states that her mother was an average disciplinarian. Her father was easy. When the de fendant was 15 years old, her mother placed her at Vista Maria, a private Catholic school for problem girls. The mother felt that she would do better there. There defendant did not present the names of any relatives so that the family background material could be checked. MARITAL STATUS: The defendant married age 31, in Ecorse in July, 1971. He is a hi lo driver for Company. They have one child, , 2 years old. Two home calls were made to the defendant's home after the within interview. However, this writer has been unable to contact the defendant's husband. HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD: For the last 25 years, the defendant has resided at Detroit. This is the parental home, which the family owns. It is a five room single family house in deteriorating condition. This writer has not been able to view the interior of the house. MILITARY SERVICE: The defendant never has been in military service. 323 SECTION THREE PAGE THREE EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND JOB READINESS: Since Junior high, the defendant has worked periodically as a sales lady at and she last worked there in June, 1981, bur is scheduled to return there. She earns $3.85 per hour. In 1975, the defendant was employed for almost a year in the kitchen at Company. She quit because her husband did not want her to work. EDUCATION: The defendant states she graduated from Southwestern High School in 1969. She states that her marks were poor because she did not study. She was not a conduct problem. However, she was a truancy problem. School records indicated that she dropped out in the ninth grade as average. Prior education was: 1. School for grades eight through nine; 2. School for grade seven; 3. School for grades-K through six. SUBSTANCE ABUSE: The defendant admits the past use of marijuana, amphetamine, barbi turates, valium, cocaine, and heroin. She first used marijuana at the age of 17* At various times, she has smoked it dally. Now it is three to four times a week. The last time was a week ago. The defendant first used amphetamines in 1979- She uses them often; when she can get them. The last time was in June, 1981. While the defendant has used barbiturates, she seldom does use them. The same is true for valium. Cocaine first was used two years ago. The last time was in June, 1981. The defendant states that she seldom uses cocaine. She will not buy it. Heroin is her major prob lem. She first inhaled it at the age of 18. This has been her only mode of use. Over the last ten years, she has had twelve different periods of addiction. The longest she has been drug free in these ten years was one year and it was long ago. The last time £he defend ant used heroin was 8-6-81, five days before the within interview. The defendant states that she presently is withdrawing. She had been spending $40 to $70 per day to support her habit. The defendant never has been in a treatment program. However, she does feel that she has a drug problem. She is willing to enter an outpatient program. The defendant indicates that her husband had a drug problem. However, she doubts that he would enter treatment. The defendant did not leave a urine specimen although one was requested. MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH: The defendant describes her health as good. She denies any history of serious illness or accident. The defendant also denies any history of mental or emotional problems. 324 SECTION THREE PAGE FOUR SOCIALIZATION: The defendant states that she tries to keep herself busy doing housework. She states that most of her friends are involved with drugs. The defendant recognizes the need to remove her self from the drug culture. ECONOMIC SITUATION: Other than the house, the defendant denies any significant assets. She states that she and her husband are deeply in debt. The bills are in his name. His check is due to be garnished. The bills are primarily from credit cards and a hospital bill from her husband's recent stay in the hospital in 1980. RELIGION: The defendant is a Baptist. However, she does not attend services. -81 325 DETROIT POIICE DEPARTMENT . ■ ■ > / / .NVESTIGATOR'S REPOR. d a te 6 ' 3 0 ' 8 1 M f iS l O O t J DEFENDANT'S NAME ADDRESS WITH ZIP CODE ______ Li ■ □ i 2- □ _______ □]a.i4 :.„________ O 'lC N S f lO »E m i c o IN *Y nO ilC U Y O C I I AGE .SEX 28 ^ F RACE B T D O .8. ICENT. NO. 4 11 i--- i 1--- --- ' O b ' O T itM f I OA>i o r o rrtN S i 5:00 Pm[_6/22/81 C C W .iriA IN A N fS NAME^ P.O. ^ _ O tn (K I CN OIN C CHARGES rt5>dN%o S ' O n" f l A C l or O F F ENSE J / Frans is & S. Fort address wifn nr cooe Narcotic Section sex * o f COUflT M il NUMBER M CK 6T N U m QER R (t A TtO N to DEF / J A S s T s Tant > T d s « < ? u T i r l c r ^ ! / 0 « H e t COMF1 A lN A N fS RHONE D»iicripi;an of Offense ond invetligation; incluJe Oote, Time ond Circumstance of Arrett and Medical Attention administered to J ’Hcert, Defendant* and Complainant*. Continue on Page 2 i f necessary. OFFENSE: On June 22. 1981, P.O. working in an undercover capacity went to and had a conversation with Def. 1) 1, regarding the purchase of heroin. Dpf. ill, told officer to meet h&r around the corner cjnd she would bring him a quanlty or heroin. Approximately three minutes later Def. U 1 , met with officer . at his vehicle and entered same. P.O. handed the Def. $25.00 in S3 Funds, and the Def. handed officer (2} tin-foll pecks sealed in a heat-sealed package. After a short conversation regarding future pur chases of heroin, officer conveyed the purchased packs of suspected heroin to the Narcotic Section where a preliminary analysis of the evidence by P.O. Gary resrealed the presence of heroin. The evidence was then placed into Loc-Seal Folder it by officer On 6-23-81 a search warrant was executed at said location end Def was not home. On 6-29-S1 Def walked into the Narcotic Section and gave herself up. 0, f / z / z o / j J i Sig n a t u r e o r i n v e s t ig a t in g o f f ic e r - KCVIIWED AND A P p fio vfo a t ^SIGNATURE o r C O M M A N D IN G OFFICE!} DISTRICT OR BUREAU MISDEMEANOR 3P FELONY T W AYNE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION IN CUSTODY?. Jt! YES □ NO P S IC IN C T < O ei«O lt) Narcotics OAlC 6-30-81 1 H DENY V RECOMMEND THE ISSUING OF A 'W A R R A N T AGAINST: NAME ADOiESS AGE 28 SEX RACE D.O.3. | IDENT. NO. - F B 4-11-531 1983 326 S ta le o f M ic h ig a n TO : H O N _ RE: ___ Age: _ A T T O R N E Y . 27_ MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAYNE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION SERVICES P R E -S E N T E N C E IN V E S T IG A T IO N REPORT S E N T E N C E DA TE: . D O C K E T N O . ____ C A S E N O __________ . . 9 - -83_ D e fendant D O B A P P O IN T E D - . R E T A IN E D . A. CURRENT C O N V IC TIO N Final C h afg e(s) 1 . ATT. LARCENY IW BUILDING 2. _______________________________________________________ 3 . __________________________________________________ 1 . M axim u m Penalty 2 Years 8ond Yes Proposal B No C redit for T im e S erved:. G uilty by: P l e a ________ Days J u ry . Judge Plea U nder Advisem ent . Date of Conviction: . 8-19-83 Sentence Agreem ent: . B. PRIOR RECORD OF: FELONY C O N V IC T IO N S M IS O E M E A N O R C O N V IC T IO N S JU V E N IL E O F F E N S E S P E N D IN G C H A R G E S R R E N TLY U N D E R S E N TE N C E : C H A R G E : P R O B A T IO N : A C T IV E _______________ PA RO LE: A C T IV E _______________ P R E S E N T LY IN C U S T O D Y :___________________ .S E N T E N C E : F O R M E R FO R M ER P E N D IN G V IO L A T IO N . P E N D IN G V IO L A T IO N . F A C IL IT Y A N D L O C A T IO N C . PERSONAL P S Y C H IA T R IC PROBLEM S P H Y S IC A L H A N D IC A P S _ _ S U B S T A N C E A B U S E H IS T O R Y A C T IV E U S E R __________________ C U R R E N T L Y EM PLO YEO . G R A D E LEVEL A C H IE V E D . 7 t h PR O BA TIO N D EPAR TM ENT R E C O M M E N D A T IO N TWO YEARS PROBATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: That he serve the first 6 months in Detroit House of Correction; That he participate in the Project Start Program; 1. 2. 3. That he perform 50 hours community service work in lieu of Court costs. A G E N T: ____ S IG N A T U R f C A S E L O A D N O . S U P E R V ic o D 's a PP R i 327 Paqe 2 EVALUATION AND PLAN: Appearinq before the Court for sentencinq is a 27 year old native of Kentucky. He has been a resident of Michigan since the age of 17. His early home' life apparently was stable. He left school after the 7th grade, in Kentucky. However, he is unable to read and write. The defendant denies ever beinq married. He does state that he soon is to be married to the mother of his 8 year old daughter. He presently pays no support. It ic noted that in a prior report (Docket 76-03547) he also indicated that he was about to be married to the mother of his child. This was another woman and child which the defendant did not mention. jv Presently the defendant resides in a lower flat on He stated that he lives there with his mother. However, neiqnbors state that the mother left for Kentucky 2 months aqo. The defendant currently is unemployed. His support is from general assistance. The defendant denies any significant substance abuse history. He has been on 3 prior probations, admitting to only one. There was one violation of probation (1977) due to a new conviction. While it appears that the defendant could profit from a period of probation, he also must learn that there are consequences for his actions. He must learn their seriousness. In addition, the defendant requires traininq due to his illiteracy. Without it, he will have a difficult time accomplishing anythinq positive in life . INVESTIGATOR'S DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE: On 4-4-83, at approximately 6:55.p.m., at employees of the were cleaning up while they awaited the return of a van belonging to one of them. They were in the basement when they heard a noise upstairs. Goinq upstairs one employee saw the two defendants near the tool boxes in the building. Gettinq the other employee, they returned and detained the two defendants who had been taking tools and a portable radio. Subsequently, it was discovered that the overhead door on the north side of the building had been forced off its tracks. The defendants were advised of their rights. Both -admitted enterinq the" buildinq through an open door. ■ However, they deny trying to steal anythinq or touching anythinq in the buildinq. 328 Paqe 3 DEFENDANT'S DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE: The defendant states that they were working on his mother's windows. They ran out of wood and needed more, so they went to the factory to try to get pallets. At the door they hollered 15 times for someone. When there was no answer, they went in to look around. Then two guys grabbed them and called the police. He feels that he did not do anything wrong. PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD: JUVENILE: None available. Defendant was raised in Kentucky. He denies record. ADULT: 1- 77, Troy, Ohio (Miami County), RCSP, Docket No. p rob a t i on . 4-27-7?, Detroit, RCSP 0/$100, Docket No. 2 years probation from the Hon. - 9- -77, violation of probation hearing, continued on probation with one weekend in Wayne County Jail — 3- -79, closed due to hardship. 8- -77, Detroit, A‘ & B, Docket No. 1 year probation with first 30 days in Detroit House of Correction, from Hon. - PROBATION ADJUSTMENT: The defendant's reporting was sporadic. There also was a violation due to a new conviction, A & B, CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED: TIME SERVED LOCATION DATES TOTAL Instant Case Jail 4-4-83 to 4-5-83 2 Days MARRIAGE AND FAMILY: Father: John, deceased in 1972 at aqe 55 from heart attack. Mother: Mary Jane, nee aqe 64, Kentucky. EDDIE DARRELL BRYANT 329 F-130752 Page 4 Brother: age 40. Brother: L., age 30. Brother: age 25. •, age 30. age 28. , age 29. age 46. age 49. age 36. > ■ age 27. The defendant is a 27 year old native of Kentucky. He was raised in Kentucky by both parents. His father was a coal miner. Their family financial situation was poor. The family lived on the outskirts of the town. While family discipline was strict, the defendant enjoyed a good relationship with his parents. After the father’s death, the family moved to Michigan. The defendant states that his early home life was average. Presently, the defendant resides at Detroit. He and his mother had rented a lower flat there. However, two months ago his mother returned to Kentucky. The defendant is not married. He has a child, age 8, who resides with the mother. The defendant states that they are to be married in two months. The defendant makes ho support payments. It is noted that the defendant speaks of no other children. Yet, a prior report (Docket prepared in April, 1977, refers to another child, 6 years old. She resided with her mother, No support was paid. At that time he also stated that he planned to marry the mother. EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC STATUS: 3-83 to Present: Unemployed. He currently .receives general assistance in the amount of $32 every two weeks. He receives $75 per month in food stamps, Brother: Brother: Brother: Sister: Sister: Sister: Sister: Page 5 330 1979 to 1983: Co., $7.60 per hour, laid oft. EDUCATION: The defendant left high school at the aqe of 16. He was in the 7th grade at Dorton School in Pottville, Kentucky at the time. The defendant states that he had a hard time learning. He is unable to read or write. He has had no further training. SUBSTANCE ABUSE: The defendant denies any significant history of substance abuse. Four years ago, he tried marijuana on two occasions. He denies its use since then. He denies any alcoholic problems although he was drinking when the instant offense occurred. MENTAL & PHYSICAL HEALTH: In November, 1978, the defendant suffered a broken neck in a serious automobile accident. Presently, he is unable to turn his neck to the side. 331 Bibliography Agar, Michael. "Themes Revisited: Some Problems in Cognitive Anthropology." Discourse Processes 1 (1979): 11-32. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. London: Academic, 1980. Agar, Michael and Jerry R. Hobbs. "Interpretory Discourse: Coherence and the Analysis of Ethnographic Interviews." Discourse Processes 5 (1982): 1-32. Allen, Francis A. The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose. New Haven: Yale UP, 1981. Aristotle. The "Art" of Rhetoric. Trans. J. H. Freese. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1976. AuPerrier, David Conrad. The Tailoring of Pre-Sentence Reports by Probation Officers for the Courts. Diss. York U, 1976. Basso, Keith, "The Ethnography of Writing." Explorations Ethnography of Speaking. Ed. Joel Sherzer and Richard Bauman. London: Cambridge UP, 1974. 425-432. Beach, Richard and Lillian S. Bridwell, eds. New Directions in Composition Research. New York: Guilford P, 1984. Beals, A., G. Spindler, and L. Spindler. Culture in Process. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, 1973. Bereiter, Carl and Marilyn Scardamalia. "Levels of Inquiry in Writing Research." Research on Writing. Ed. Mosenthal et al. London: Longman, 1983. 3-25. Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation." PR 1 (1968): 1-14 . 332 Bond, Sandra J., John R. Hayes, and Linda S. Flower. Translating the Law into Common Language; A Protocol Study. Technical Report 8. Pittsburgh: Carnegie- Mellon U, 1980. Booth, Wayne. "The Rhetorical Stance." College Communication and Communication. Oct. 1963. Brand, Norman and John 0. White. Legal Writing: The Strategy of Persuasion. New York: St. Martin's, 1976. Brockreide, Wayne E. and Douglas Ehninger. "Toulmin on Argument: An Interpretation and Application." Quarterly Journal of Speech Feb. 1960: 44-53. Bruffee, Kenneth. "Social Construction, Language, and Knowledge." Col lege English 48.8 (1986): 773-790. Burke, Kenneth A. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1969. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1966. — . The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1941. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1950. . Permanence and Change. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1954. Carter, Robert M. Presentence Report Handbook. Washington: National Inst, of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1978. . "The Presentencing Report and the Decision-Making Process." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4.2 (1967): 128+. Carter, Robert et al. Corrections in America. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1975. 333 Carter, Robert M. and Leslie T. Wilkins. Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley, 1976. Charrow, Veda. Let the Rewriter Beware. Washington: Amer. Inst, for Research, Dec. 1979. Linguistic Theory and the Study of Legal and Bureaucratic Language. Technical Report 16. Washington: Amer. Inst, for Research, 1981. . What is 'Plain English' Anyway? Washington: Amer. Inst, for Research, Dec. 1979. Christensen, Francis. Notes Toward a New Rhetoric: Six Essays for Teachers. New York: Harper, 1967. Clark, Christopher M., Susan Florio et al. "Understanding Writing Instruction: Issues of Theory and Method." Research on Writing: Principles and Methods. Ed. Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tamor, Sean A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 236-261. Coe, Richard. "An Apology for Form; or Who Took the Form Out of the Process." College English 49.1 (1987): 13-28. Cohn, Yona. "On the Presentence Investigation." Federal Probation Dec. 1982: 46-53. Dahl, James J. et al. Improved Probation Strategies Manual. U.S. Dept, of Justice. University Research Corporation, 1979. Danet, Brenda. "Language in the Legal Process." Law and Society Rev. 14.3 (1980): 445-564. "Law, Bureaucracy and Language." Society May-June 1983: 49-55. Denzin, N. K. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw, 1978. Easterby, Ronald and Harry Zwaga, eds. Information Design: The Design and Evaluation of Signs and Printed Material. New York: John Wiley, 1984. 334 Felker, Daniel B., Frances Pickering, Veda R. Charrow, V. Melissa Holland, Janice Redish. Guidelines for Document Designers. Washington: Amer. Inst, for Research, 1980. 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 Rev. 93 (1980): 1613-1697. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1957. Fetterman, David M., ed. "Doing Ethnographic Educational Evaluation." Fetterman. 13-20. Ethnography in Educational Evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984. "Ethnography in Educational Research: The Dynamics of Diffusion." Fetterman. 21-36. Finegan, Edward. "Form and Function in Testament Language." Linguistics and the Professions. Ed. Robert J. DiPietro. Vol. 8 of Advances in Discourse Processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1982. 8:113-120. Flower, Linda S. "Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing." College English 41 (1979): 19-37. Flower, John R. Hayes, and Heidi Swarts. Revising Functional Documents: The Scenario Principle. Technical Report 10. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-MelIon U, 1980. Foucault, Michael. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1977. Gabor, T. and C. H. S. Jaywardene. "The Pre-Sentence Report as a Persuasive Communication." Canadian Journal of Criminology Jan. 1978: 18-27. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basis, 1973. 335 Gibson, W. Persona. New York: Random, 1969. Glaser, B. C., and A. L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Gleuck, S. "The Sentencing Problem." Federal Probation 4.15 (1956): 20, cited in James B. White, The Legal Imagination: Studies in the Nature of Legal Thought and Expression. Boston: Little, 1973. Goldfarb, Ronald L. and James C. Raymond. Clear Understandings: A Guide to Legal Writing. New York: Random, 1982. Goldman, Rau. "A Hidden Issue of Sentencing: Burdens of Proof for Disputed Allegations in Presentence Reports." Georgetown Law Journal, 66: 1515-1549. Goodrich, Peter. "Rhetoric as Jurisprudence: An Introduction to the Politics of Legal Language." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 4(1): 88-122. Gordon, R. L. Interviewing: Strategy, Techniques, and Tactics. 3rd ed. New York: Dorsey, 1975. Green, Lawrence D. "Enthymemic Invention and Structural Prediction." College English 41 (1980): 623-634. Greenberg, Douglas. "Crime, Law Enforcement, and Social Control in Colonial America." American Journal of Legal History Oct. 1982: 293-325. Gumperz, J. P. and J. J. Gumperz. "From Oral to Written Culture: The Transition to Literacy." Variation in Writing. Ed. M. F. Whitehead. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1979. Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruquaiya Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group, Ltd., 1976. Harrington, Michael. The Other America. New York: Pelikan, 1982. Hartley, James, ed. The Psychology of Written Communication. New York: Nichols, 1980. 336 Holmes, 0. W. The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown, 1886. Horst, Stanley E., rev. of Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose, by Francis A. Allen. Amer J Legal Hist 27.3:312. Hymes, Dell. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1974. Johannesen, Richard, Rennard Strickland, and Ralph Eubanks, eds. Language is Sermonic: Richard M. Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1970. Johnson, Perry. Speech to the American Corrections Association, Annual Convention, 1979. Jonassen, David. "Individual Differences and Learning from Text." Technology of Text. 441-463. The Technology of Text: Principles for Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Tech. P, 1982. Kantor, K. J. "Research in Context: Ethnographic Studies in English Education." Research in the Teaching of English. 15.4 (1981): 293-309. Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal1, 1971. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1970. Langerman, Herbert. Determinants of Probation Officers' Presentence Recommendation. Diss. New York U, 1976. LeCompte, Margaret D. and Judith P. Goetz. "Ethnographic Data Collection in Evaluation Research." Fetterman. 37-64. LeCureux, Robert. Unpublished memorandum. Wayne County Department of Corrections, 1982. Lentricchia, Frank. Criticism and Social Change. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983. 337 Levy, Judith N. "Linguistics, Language, and Law: A Topical Bibliography." Bloomington, IN: Indiana Linguistics Club, 1982. Lofland, John and Lyn H. Lofland. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984. MacDonald, Ross M. and E. Smith. Graphics in Text, cited in L. Shulman, ed. Review of Research in Education. Vol. 5. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1978. Manning, Peter K. "Metaphors of the Field: Varieties of Organizational Discourse." Administrative Science Quarterly Dec. 1979: 660-671. Martinson, Robert. "Viewpoint on Rehabilitation." Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections. Ed. Robert M. Carter and Leslie T. Wilkins. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley, 1976. McAnany, Patrick D. "Sentencing: Presentence Report." The Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. Ed. Sanford H. Kadish. Vol. 4. New York: Free Press. 1472-1476. McHenry, James O'Neal. The Pre-Sentence Investigation in Detroit Recorder's Court: A Comparison Between the Probation Officer's Recommendation and the Court's Decision in Felony Cases. Diss. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1979. Mellinkoff, David. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, 1963. . Legal Writing: Sense and Nonsense. New York: Scribner's, 1982. Miles, Matthew B. "Qualitative Data as an Attractive Nuisance: The Problem of Analysis." Administrative Science Quarterly Dec. 1979: 590-601. Michigan Compiled Laws. Sections 769.1 to 779. St. Paul: West, 1983. Morris, Norval. The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1974. 338 Mosenthal, Peter et al., eds. Research on Writing: Principles and Methods. New York: Longman, 1983. Nelson, E. Kim, Howard Omart, and Nora Harlow. Promising Strategies in Probation and Parole. U.S. Dept, of Justice, National 'Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,, Office of Development, Testing, and Dissemination. Nov. 1978. Norris, Robert 0. "Decision-Making in Probation: A Study of Presentence Recommendations." Diss. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969. O'Barr, William M. "The Language of the Law." Unpublished paper to appear in Language in the U.S.A. Ed. Charles A. Ferguson and Shirley Brice Heath, 1-44. O'Dell, Lee and Dixie Goswani. Writing in Nonacademic Settings. New York: Guilford Press, 1985. O'Dell, Lee and Dixie Goswami. "Writing in a Non-Academic Setting." New Directions in Composition Research. Ed. Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell. Vol. 1 of Perspectives in Writing Research. Ed. Linda Flower and John R. Hayes. New York: Guilford, 1984. 233- 258. O'Dell, Lee and Dixie Goswami et al. "The Discourse-Based Interview: A Procedure for Exploring the Tacit Knowledge of Writers in Non-Academic Settings." Research on Writing: Principles and Methods. Ed. Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tamor, Sean A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 221-236. "Studying Writing in Non-Academic Settings." New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice. Ed. Paul Anderson et al. Vol. 2 of Baywood's Technical Communication Series. Ed. J. R. Gould. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood, 1983. 17-40. Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Metheun, Inc., 1982. Rhetoric, Romance and Technology: Studies in the Interaction of Expression and Culture. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1971. 339 "The Writer's Audience is Always a Fiction." PMLA Jan. 1975: 9-21. Overington, Michael A. "Kenneth Burke and the 'Method of Dramatism.'" Theory and Society Spring 1977: 131-156. Paul, John. Personal interview, Aug. 13, 1986. Patten, Tom. Personal interview, July 1985. Pelto, P. J. and G. H. Pelto. Anthropologica 1 Research: The Structure of Inquiry. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1978. Perelman, Chaim. The Idea of Justice and The Problems of Argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame UP, 1969. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame UP, 1982. . "Rhetoric." Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974. Polanyi, M. and H. Brosch. Meaning. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1975. Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge. New York: Harper, 1964. Redish, Janice. How to Draft More Understandable Legal Documents. Washington: Document Design Center, Amer. Inst, for Research, Dec. 1979. . Readability. Washington: Amer. Inst, for Research, Dec. 1979. Robertson, Sheila N. and The Honorable James E. Mies. "Sentencing in Michigan." Detroit/Wayne County Criminal Advocacy Program, Nov. 1983. Rosenblatt, Louise M. "Viewpoints: Transactions Versus Interaction— A Terminological Rescue Operation." Research in the Teaching of English Feb. 1985: 96-107. 340 Rutter, Russell. "Teaching Writing to Probation Officers: Problems, Methods, and Resources." College Composition and Communication 33.3 (1982): 288-295. Schank, Roger and Robert Abelson. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1977. Schmolesky, John M. and Timothy K. Thorson. "The Importance of the Presentence Investigation Report After Sentencing." Criminal Law Bulletin Sept.-Oct. 1982: 406-441. Scribner, S. and M. Cole. "Literacy Without Schooling: Testing for Intellectual Effects." Harvard Educational Rev. 49 (1978): 448-461. Shuy, Roger W. "Four Misconceptions About Clarity and Simplicity." Language Arts. May 1981: 557-561. "A Holistic View of Language." Research in the Teaching of English 15 (1981): 101-111. Smith, Alexander B. and Abraham S. Blumberg. "The Problem of Objectivity in Judicial Decision Making." Social Forces 46.1 (1967): 96-105. Spencer, Jack William. Discourse and Textual Processes in a Probation Department: An Analysis of Written and Interactional Communication. Diss. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1983. Spica, Arthur. "The A to Z of the Presentence Report." Federal Probation Dec. 1978: 51-53. Stevenson, Dwight and J. C. Mathes. Designing Technical Reports: Writing for Audiences in Organizations. Indianapolis: Bobbs, 1976. Stubbs, Michael. Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguistics of Reading and Writing. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980. Swarts, Heide et al. "How Headings in Documents Can Mislead Readers." Technical Report 9. Washington: Amer. Inst, for Research, 1980. 341 Tamoor, L. and J. T. Bond. "Text Analysis: Inferring Process from Product." Research on Writing: Principles and Methods. Ed. Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Taraor, Sean A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 3-25. United States. "Informational Basis for Sentence. Presentence Report: General Principles." American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, 1982. . Michigan General Court Rules. GCR 785. St. Paul: West, 1983. . President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in Free Society. Washington: GPO, 1967. . "The Selective Presentence Investigation Report." Federal Probation. Washington: GPO, Dec. 1974. 47-54. Vasoli, Robert H. The Predictive Value of the Federal Presentence Investigation" Diss. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame, 1964. White, Hayden and Margaret Brose, eds. Representing Kenneth Burke. English Institute, Series 6. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1982. White, James Boyd. "The Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life." University of Chicago Law Rev. 52.3 (1985): 684-702. • The Legal Imagination: Studies in the Nature of Legal Thought and Expression. Boston: Little, 1973. Williams, Joseph M. "Defining Complexity." College English. Feb. 1979: 595-609. Winterowd, W. Ross. "Beyond Style." Philosophy and Rhetoric. Spring 1972: 88-110. "Brain, Rhetoric, and Style." Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition. Ed. Donald McQuade. Akron: U of Akron P, 1979. 342 Composition/Rhetoric: A Synthesis. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern UP, 1986. Contemporary Rhetoric: A Conceptual Background with Readings. New York: Harcourt, 1975. "Disposition: The Concept of Form in Discourse." College Composition and Communication. Feb. 1971: 39-45. "From Classroom Practice Into Psycholinguistic Theory." Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language. Ed. Aviva Freedman, Ian Pringle, and Janice Yolden. London: Longman, 1983. "The Grammar of Coherence." College English. May 1970: 828-835. . "Prolegomenon to Pedagogical Stylistics." College Composition and Communication. Feb. 1983: 80-90. . "The Realms of Meaning: Text-Centered Criticism." College Composition and Communication. Dec. 1972: 399-405. "The Rhetoric of Beneficence, Authority, Ethical Commitment, and the Negative." Philosophy and Rhetoric. 9:2, 65-83. "Speech Acts and the Reader-Writer Transaction (with Dorothy Augustine}." Composition/Rhetoric: A Synthesis. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern UP, 1986. 175-193. "Style: A Matter of Manner." Quarterly Journal of Speech. April 1970: 161-167. "Syntax, Readability, Intention and the Real World." Journal of English Teaching Techniques. Summer 1980: 21-33. . "The Three R's: Reading, Reading and Rhetoric." Rhetoric and Change. Ed. William E. Tanner and J. Dean Bishop. Mesquite, TX: Ide House, 1982. Woodard, Calvin, rev. of The Critical Legal Studies Movement, by R. M. Unger. New York Times 23 Nov. 1986: 27. 343 Wright, Patricia. "Feeding the Information Eaters: Suggestions for integrating Pure and Applied Research on Language Comprehension." Instructional Science 7 (1978): 249-312. "Is Legal Jargon a Restrictive Practice?" Psychology in Legal Contexts: Applications and Limitations. Ed. M. A. Sally and Lloyd Bostock. London: Macmillan, 1981. 121-145. Wright, Patricia and Philip Barnard. "Just Fill in This Form: A Review for Designers." The Psychology of Written Communication. Ed. James Hartley and Kogan Page. New York: London/Nichol, 1980. 169-184. Young, Richard E., Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike. Rhetoric, Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt, 1970.

Linked assets