This article discusses some functions of aggregation and examines the shift to a harm-based penal philosophy that the move toward aggregated sentences has yielded. The claim that guidelines have reduced disparity in sentencing is based on the erroneous assumptions of harm-based norms. This article describes some of the inequality that has resulted from Federal sentencing guidelines and notes ways in which judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys evade and subvert the guidelines; plea bargaining is one technique for nullifying sentencing guidelines. The relationship between aggregation and the "severity revolution" in criminal sentences is analyzed and related to the overcrowding problem in American prisons. An alternative approach to current guidelines would use a sentencing commission's resolution of specific, recurring sentencing issues as well as paradigmatic cases as benchmarks for sentencing judges.