The “myth of individualized justice” thesis argues that, while individualized justice no longer exists in substantive form, the myth, institutionalized in the PSIR, endures because it performs important latent functions for the court system. Using a sample of cases charged with felony sexual assault, this study revisits that thesis and offers a revised conception of the PSIR. The probation officer was excluded from participation in sentencing by means of the waiver procedure in 23 percent of negotiated cases. Probation officers submitted sentencing recommendations more severe than the plea in 29 percent of their reports. Judges rejected those recommendations in almost all instances. Probation officers relied on the same sentencing values as prosecutors and judges in forming recommendations. Probation officers were viewed positively by judges and prosecuting attorneys but negatively by defense attorneys. The article suggests that the probation officer is best seen as an “agent of the state,” and the PSIR should be viewed as an instrument for implementing punishment values. Figures, note, references, statutes and cases cited