The sentencing guidelines are commonly criticized on policy grounds, that they unduly limit judicial discretion and unjustifiably shift discretion to prosecutors; on process grounds, that they cause judges and prosecutors to circumvent them; on technocratic grounds, that they are too complex and hard to apply accurately; on fairness grounds, that by taking only offense elements and prior convictions into account they require very different defendants to receive the same sentence; and on normative grounds, that they greatly increase the proportion of offenders receiving prison sentences and are generally too harsh. Four features of the sentencing guidelines make them more restrictive than existing State guidelines: (1) although the sentencing guidelines are presumptive in principle and judges have the authority to depart from them, grounds for departures are limited; (2) few approved bases for departures are available; (3) sentencing guideline application is based on actual offense behavior and not on the offense for which the defendant is convicted; and (4) the sentencing guidelines are intended to increase the severity of Federal sentencing. 17 references, 1 footnote, and 3 tables