British studies indicate the use of psychiatric presentence reports in under 3 percent of all cases, while Australian data showed their use in 6 to 8 percent of cases. Despite the vagueness and variability of suggested grounds for making a decision to refer an offender for a psychiatric presentence report, no evidence indicates that the use of reports is indiscriminate or automatic. Forensic psychiatrists generally agree that presentence reports should advocate lenient, individualized treatment. They believe that the psychiatric presentence report's role is to place data and predictions before the courts based on the assumptions that mitigation of the sentence depends on future behavior and that punishment should not be standardized and should be noncustodial if possible. Studies have variously shown rates of concurrence with psychiatric reports of 70 percent to 100 percent. Critics charge that the influence of these reports is so great that they should either not be used or not make recommendations. However, courts have insisted that they are free to disregard the recommendations and have referred to critiques of psychiatry when rejecting recommendations. Courts have also refused to follow recommendations on the grounds that they consider only the offender's interests. However, courts seem willing to reject recommendations for lenience but rarely reject recommendations for lengthy custodial sentences. Footnotes are included.