With the transition to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in 1987, the defense lawyer's role in sentencing fundamentally changed. A defendant's sentence is now determined, in large part, by the prosecutor's decisions and the public defender's adeptness in manipulating the Sentencing Guidelines, compared to the previous system in which the judge was almost solely responsible for the sentence. Constraints on defense resources as well as the prosecutor's zeal in attempting to secure a plea, or a more severe sentence in the absence of a plea, now effectively determine the length of a defendant's sentence. With this change, those represented by public defenders are especially disadvantaged, because the public defender may not have the time, resources, or facility with the Sentencing Guidelines to advocate effectively for a shorter sentence. As the skill required for effective advocacy has increased under the Guidelines, the standard for challenging the effectiveness of counsel has remained the same, and budgets for public defenders have declined. The result is that indigent defendants are even more disadvantaged under a Guidelines regime, and the rational prosecutor will often attempt to exploit this disadvantage to dispose of cases. The concluding sections of this article examine the effects that such inequities can have in generally augmenting violence within the penal system, as well as throughout society, by using a utilitarian perspective of the Guidelines. Some possible solutions to these problems, as well as the practicality of each of these solutions are discussed. 3 figures and 204 footnotes