U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Insuring the Accuracy of the Presentence Investigation Report in the Wisconsin Correctional System

NCJ Number
114905
Journal
Wisconsin Law Review Volume: 1986 Issue: 3 Dated: (1986) Pages: 613-631
Author(s)
J H Bergman
Date Published
1986
Length
19 pages
Annotation
The presentence investigation report (PSI) is the single most important document that influences correctional decisionmaking in Wisconsin.
Abstract
The PSI provides the court with information on the defendant's social, family, and economic background; criminal record; and facts of the crime of conviction. In Wisconsin, the court has discretion to order the preparation of the PSI, usually by an agent who is to serve as the defendant's parole or probation officer. The only statutory requirement regarding the contents of the PSI, is that the preparer attempt to contact the victim of the crime and report on the impact of the crime. The Department of Health and Human Services administrative code contains more detailed requirements; and the report usually includes sentencing recommendations and a tentative treatment plan. The PSI not only influences sentencing, but also is used extensively in correctional decisionmaking in such areas as security classification and actual time spent in custody. The PSI is a valuable correctional tool if accurate, but if inaccurate or misleading, it may have a detrimental effect on the inmate. While Wisconsin law provides that the defense attorney or the unrepresented inmate may have access to the PSI before sentencing, inmates are denied postsentencing access except by specific court authorization. It is suggested that legislative reform is needed to ensure the accuracy of the PSI. Inmates should be given access to the PSI before sentencing and be allowed to retain it thereafter. There should be judicial factfinding should the defendant allege inaccuracies, and alleged inaccuracies should be appended to the institutional record after sentencing. 116 footnotes.