Part I tracks the expansion of community input in criminal sentencing, presents its various forms of admission, and examines the initial impact of the "Payne" decision. Part II explores the possibility of an interpretation of the "Payne" decision broad enough to include community-impact statements. It concludes that communities are victims of crime and are likely to have information relevant to the setting of sentences, and thus appear to fit within the "Payne" Court's rationale. Part III analyzes the foreseeable practical and constitutional problems with institutionalizing or even sporadically allowing community participation at sentencing. It notes that community members already have a substantial voice in sentencing decisions through the political and legislative process. Part IV concludes that widespread use of community-impact statements would produce an unacceptable skewing of the criminal justice process in favor of victims. It considers alternative methods of incorporating valuable community information without jeopardizing defendants' rights. 248 footnotes