Pittsburgh has a partisan and highly centralized city government, while Minnesota has a formally non-partisan and structurally fragmented city government. Criminal statutes in both Pennsylvania and Minnesota, as in most States, allow judges the choice of incarcerating a convicted defender or granting probation in most felony cases. To understand typical judicial behavior patterns in the two cities, sentencing decisions were statistically compared for the nine most common felony offenses. To understand judicial attitudes, decision-making processes, and courtroom behavior, interviews were conducted with all but one judge in both cities, and courtroom trial proceedings were observed over a period of several months. Results showed significant differences in sentencing decisions of judges in the two cities. In general, sentencing decisions were more lenient in Pittsburgh than in Minneapolis. White and black defendants received a greater percentage of probation and a shorter length of incarceration in Pittsburgh. Although black and white defendants received more lenient sentences in Pittsburgh, whites in both cities received a greater percentage of probation than blacks in most categories. Whites received a shorter length of incarceration than blacks in most categories in Minneapolis, while blacks received a shorter length of incarceration than whites in Pittsburgh. Minneapolis judges penalized defendants who pled not guilty by giving them more severe sentences more frequently than Pittsburgh judges. On the whole in Pittsburgh, decisions for such defendants were only slightly more severe than those for defendants who pled guilty, but they were much more severe in Minneapolis. There was also much more consistency in the length of incarceration terms in Minneapolis than in Pittsburgh. Minneapolis judges tended to be more oriented toward "society" and its needs and protection than toward the defendant. Pittsburgh judges were typically oriented toward the defendant and tended to lack orientation toward punishment or deterrence. The author believes the behavior of Pittsburgh and Minneapolis judges is the indirect product of each city's political systems, and he discusses policy implications of judicial decision-making in criminal courts. 19 notes and 1 table