Over 400 judges returned completed questionnaires. Regarding the purpose of sentencing, 88 percent of the respondents endorsed public protection as the overall purpose, and 86 percent favored proportionality as the main principle in sentencing. Fifty percent believed there was some unwarranted sentencing disparity from Province to Province, but only 12 percent believed there was too much disparity from judge to judge. The most popular strategy for addressing sentencing variation was through the existing provincial courts of appeal (73 percent endorsed this approach). Eighty percent were against having a national sentencing court. Regarding plea bargaining, 79 percent stated they were never or rarely involved in plea and sentence negotiations, and 86 percent were opposed to a legislative prohibition of plea and sentence negotiations. A total of 79 percent favored having a better information system pertaining to current sentencing practice, and 70 percent favored having a computer system to provide basic sentencing information about individual cases. Regarding current sentence maximums as a guide, 22 percent said they used them as a guide "most or all of the time," 50 percent said "sometimes;" and 28 percent said "seldom or never." Other questions pertained to suspended sentences, reordering offenses by seriousness ranking, effect on sentencing of the availability of prison space, effect on sentencing of changes in release procedures, mandatory supervision, and parole. 6 tables.