Case studies were presented by jurisdictions that had recently undertaken legislative reforms: England and Wales; Sweden; Victoria, Australia; and Minnesota, Oregon, and the Federal system in the United States. The object of the conference was to determine what general lessons might be learned from those efforts. Several questions required consideration: (1) the range of policy problems that typically provide the impetus for major sentencing reform initiatives; (2) why the just desert approach to sentencing is so favored by both penal philosophers and civil servants and politicians; (3) why that approach is apparently acceptable in some jurisdictions and not in others; (4) the typical points of resistance to sentencing reform; and (5) the extent to which changes in the legislative framework achieve changes in sentencing practice. In addition to considering responses to these questions, the author highlights some of the themes which emerged from the conference. He emphasizes how England and Wales and Sweden have responded to reformist challenges emanating largely from the United States. Footnotes