Trial judges are likely to be familiar with the temperament of the community as it relates to particular crimes. The question is how does a judge ensure a full and fair understanding of the attitudes and temperament of a community. Another question is how does an appellate tribunal assess knowledge of the community. Appellate courts may uphold sentences by reference to the wisdom and experience of the sentencing judge, and acknowledging the judge’s knowledge of the local situation. Wise and experienced judges do make mistakes. At what point do judges become experienced and how do they make that transparent in their reasons. One may ask the question: does an offender receive a sterner sentence because the media chose to follow that case as opposed to another, and does it matter that there is a grapevine that the trial judge knows nothing about? Another question is does the size of the community matter. Is the judge aware of present-day events or suffering from a “generation gap?” A number of issues must be addressed if trial judges are to take into account the wishes of the community. First, the large part of a community may hold a different view than that of a smaller segment of the population. Second, the community at large may wish undue leniency and not be sensitized to the plight of the victim. There is merit in the position that in many cases a local trial judge having some experience of the community is ideally placed to consider and to weigh knowledge of any local situation as it influences the imposition of sentences. The extent to which the doctrine should apply is questionable. Consideration must be given to the need to create a fuller record for appellate review and the potential unfairness of treating one offender more harshly or more leniently than another depending of the experience of a judge. 25 footnotes