District court judges process over 250,000 criminal cases yearly, over 90 percent of all criminal cases. They are generally empowered to exercise broad discretion in determining sentences, and this discretion is mainly restricted by statutory penalty ceilings. Notwithstanding the availability of discretion, the prevailing sentencing pattern is judicial approval of plea bargains which are considered servicable to the case management interests of district courts. The Massachusetts Sentencing Commission is now responsible for redesigning sentencing powers through the development of sentencing guidelines that will provide sentencing ranges for offenses and permit flexibility in the individualized sentencing of defendants. While plea bargaining is a practical necessity for managing criminal caseloads, the impact of lawyer subjectivity can be minimized by centering plea and sentencing discussions on objective information. Implementing information systems necessary for reliably classifying offenders requires redefining probation's mission from micro case management responsibilities to classification and program management functions. Under the Massachusetts model, the probation department will become responsible for developing and operationalizing sentence classification systems. Certain problems associated with the model's emphasis on probation and the need to promote public safety interests are examined. 16 notes