While reviews of the Federal Sentencing Commission have been mixed, the experience of State sentencing commissions has been more positive. Evidence supporting the substantive failure of Federal guidelines also demonstrates the institutional capacity of sentencing commissions to establish system-wide sentencing policies, to change sentencing practices, and to structure the discretion of sentencing judges. The Federal experience shows that, as an institution, a sentencing commission can operate like administrative agencies do on other subjects. At the State level, sentencing commissions serve as the principal forum for sentencing policy proposals. Each commission has developed a monitoring system and has considered or implemented changes to sentencing guidelines. To some extent, State sentencing commissions have insulated sentencing policies from short-term emotionalism and law and order sloganeering. In addition, State sentencing guidelines have shifted sentencing practices toward greater use of imprisonment for violent offenders and less severe sanctions for property offenders. Although noting problems associated with the operation of sentencing commissions, the author concludes that the sentencing commission idea will survive. 42 footnotes