Over its 17-year existence, Minnesota's Sentencing Guidelines System has successfully managed many changes generated by the commission, practitioners, and politicians. Compliance with the guidelines, although very high in the early years, moderated over time. Case law that supports utilitarian purposes in sentencing rather than retribution allowed practitioners to return somewhat to previous beliefs and practices. Increasing caseloads and the need to limit trials, along with other cultural changes in courtroom work groups has changed the mix of negotiations that involve the sentence and the charge. The role the sentencing judge plays with respect to the sentencing decision has also been affected. Along with system changes, Minnesota has also experienced political changes. Reflecting the trend in the United States in general, Minnesota has responded to violent crime with tougher sentences. Although political and practical forces have affected the evolution of the Sentencing guidelines policy, the structure of the guidelines themselves and the goals they represent have directed the policy changes toward rational options rather than unmanageable ones. This appears to be particularly true with respect to violent crime, but not necessarily true for drug crimes. Minnesota will continue to makes changes to its sentencing system, but the real challenge will be to address the area of drug sentencing policy in a more rational and comprehensive manner. 2 figures, 14 notes, and 21 references