The Changing Role of the Probation Officer in the Federal Court

Abstract

Criticism of the sentencing guidelines ranges from concern by defense lawyers and judges that manda tory penalties grossly exceed the nature and scope of the crimes to vigorous assertions by some appellate judges that their dockets have been unduly clogged by meritless appeals from persons who contend that the trial judge misapplied the guidelines. Amid this debate, comparatively little attention has been given to the effect of the Sentencing Reform Act upon the probation officer who, by law and tradition, continues to be a major participant in the federal sentencing process. The passage of this Act did not substantively alter the fundamental obliga tions and duties of the probation officer. The probation officer continues to bear responsibility for preparation of presentence reports2 and supervision of persons for the court or the United States Parole Commission. However, it is in the implementation of these dual obligations that the duties of the proba tion officer have been directly affected by the Act. To the defendant, the probation officer before the guidelines was viewed as a neutral?standing between the defense counsel and the prosecutor,3 serving as a conduit for pertinent information to the sentencing judge. To the judge, the probation officer provided much needed background information about the defendant, and served as a consultant with regard to the laws, sentencing regulations and policies that could affect the sentence.