Structured sentencing as it has developed in the last quarter of the 20th century in America refers to the attempt to control or modify the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion, one of the last steps in the sanctioning process. The movement toward structured sentencing has not always been orderly in its development or universal in its application. Whether it was part of a systemic approach or merely piecemeal change, reformers directed change efforts primarily toward sentencing courts and sometimes toward discretionary parole, the most visible parts of the sanctioning process. The movement toward structured sentencing started as an effort to call attention to and eliminate racial and other extralegal biases in the sentencing of offenders, as well as to provide proportional punishment. Most of the piecemeal sentencing reforms increased penalties and often created unanticipated complications to the existing sanctioning process. In addition, the reforms were invariably more costly than anticipated, only infrequently incorporating intermediate punishment and other community-based dispositions into possible sentencing outcomes. The remainder of this article provides an overview of the remaining five papers in this issue of "Law and Policy." 2 tables, 6 notes, and 11 references