THE EFFORTS TO REFORM THE NATION'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM SINCE THE MID-1960'S, PARTICULARLY THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT BEAR ON DISCRETIONARY DECISION MAKING, ARE SUMMARIZED. ARGUMENTS FOR NARROWING DISCRETION ARE CONSIDERED, EXPLORING THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH NARROWING WOULD IN ITSELF IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION INVOLVING MAJOR PREDATORY CRIME AND WHETHER IT WOULD LEAD TO THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION. SUGGESTIONS AND EXAMPLES FOR A PROCESS OF CHANGE THAT OVER TIME WOULD ELIMINATE MUCH OF THE UNJUSTIFIABLE DISCRETION FROM CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION BY CONCENTRATING ON THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG COURTS, LEGISLATURES, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS. THE PROPOSED SYSTEM IS ONE IN WHICH DECISIONS ARE MADE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AUTHORITY WITH THE GREATEST DEGREE OF VISIBILITY PERMITTED BY THE NATURE OF THE DECISION AND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS MADE.