In studying disparities in sentences, the authors surveyed a large representative group of practicing judges, prosecutors, parole commissioners, and wardens in New York State and the Federal Government. Even though reforms enacted by States show a great variety of solutions, widespread agreement exists among jurisdictions that: (1) the old style totally indeterminate (1 year to life) sentence is unacceptable because old assumptions regarding the success of rehabilitative programs are no longer considered valid, (2) incapacitation and deterrence have become the primary goals of sentencing, (3) personal crime is more important than property crime, (4) violent crime is more important than nonviolent crime, and (5) sentences should be proportional to the offense. Fairly wide agreement also exists that mandatory sentences are probably unworkable, that the characteristics of the offender as well as the offense should be considered, and that some kind of appellate review of sentencing is desirable. On the basis of their survey, the authors come to several conclusions about current sentencing problems. They point out that sentencing guidelines or presumptive sentencing will not reduce disparity in sentencing because these schemes do not address the distorting effect of plea bargaining. They also suggest that practitioners be consulted when changes in sentencing and criminal procedure are made. 1 footnote, 8 references, and appendix.