The interest of the defense bar and the entrepreneurship of former probation officers has spawned the private presentence report and the profession of forensic criminologist. Three major reasons have been cited for the recent rise in private presentence report services: (1) budget cuts affecting probation departments' ability to formulate high quality reports, (2) overcrowded prisons which are forcing the criminal justice system to consider alternative sentencing for an ever increasing percentage of offenders, and (3) an alleged institutional bias by public probation officers, who are susceptible to public pressure for more jail sentences. There are a number of arguments that can be mounted against this trend, however. First, the private sector should have no role in the quasi-judicial sentencing process. To maintain the credibility of the presentence function for defendants, the public and police agencies, it should remain a governmental function. Second, the private presentence report's emphasis on 'individualized justice' tends to ignore needed reforms of the probation function within the criminal justice system. Third, private reports are not cost-effective, and fourth, the inevitable politicizing of the presentence process involves ethical issues tending to compromise the integrity of the forensic criminologist. Twenty-three references are provided.