THIS ARTICLE ALSO ANALYZES THE FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THE JUDGE IN THE SENTENCING PROCESS. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SENTENCES IMPOSED BY JUDGES ARE NOT AS GREAT AS MANY STUDIES SUGGEST. HOWEVER, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN SENTENCES IMPOSED BY JUDGES, THIS CAUSES DAMAGE TO THE COURTS' PRESTIGE IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC, LEADS TO DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS IN PRISONS AND INCREASES THE DIFFICULTIES OF ACHIEVING THE AIMS OF PUNISHMENT. SEVERAL PROPOSED SOLUTIONS FOR THE PROBLEM ARE DISCUSSED. THE AUTHOR REJECTS SEPARATION OF THE SENTENCING FUNCTION AND THE FUNCTION OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. INSTEAD, HE STRESSES LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF THE JUDGE'S PERSONALITY ON HIS SENTENCES BY LAYING DOWN A GRADUAL STATUTORY SCALE OF SENTENCES FOR EACH OFFENSE, IMPOSING A STATUTORY DUTY OF GIVING REASONS FOR SENTENCES, SUBMITTING TO THE JUDGE A LIST OF SENTENCES IMPOSED ON CRIMINALS FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, PRESENTING DETAILED REPORTS OF PROBATION OFFICERS AND OTHER SPECIALISTS, AND TRAINING JUDGES IN CRIMINOLOGY. --IN HEBREW. SUMMARY IN ENGLISH