Respondents represented approximately a 20-percent sample of all Canadian provincial court judges hearing criminal cases. For each of the five cases, involving six offenders, the judges were given a full description of the incident for which charges were laid, the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the incident, the offender's reaction to involvement with the court, the impact of the incident on the victim, and a detailed presentence report on the offender. Judges were asked to impose a sentence for each offender, indicate which case facts were relevant to the sentence, indicate the relative importance of these case facts in determining sentence, and list the legal objectives of the sentence. Judges also reported demographic information on themselves and their sentencing environments. Substantial sentencing disparity was evidenced, and the differential subscription to legal objectives was the most potent predictor of sentence severity, followed closely by the differential importance accorded various case 'facts.' Although judges' demographics and sentencing context challenged the legal-objective and case-fact variable sets for primary explanatory power in two cases, they were secondary overall. Sentencing disparity was greatest in the cases where offender and offense information were inconsistent, i.e., when offenders with extensive criminal backgrounds committed minor offenses and when first-time offenders committed serious offenses. 2 tables and 31 references.