AN OVERVIEW OF JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING IDENTIFIES SOURCES OF TENSION--THE GENERAL LAW VERSUS THE SPECIFIC CASE, RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING EXPECTATIONS ABOUT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND THE PROPER FUNCTION OF PUNISHMENT--IN THE JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING PROCESS. RESEARCH ON EXTRALEGAL FACTORS THAT SEEM TO INFLUENCE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IS CITED IN A DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE OF DISCRETION IN JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. SIX GENERAL GOALS OF LEGAL SANCTION--JUSTICE, RETRIBUTION, VALUE AFFIRMATION, DETERRENCE, REHABILITATION, AND EFFICIENCY--ARE EXAMINED FOR THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ANY ONE OF SEVERAL GOALS MAY BE SALIENT IN ANY GIVEN DECISION, AND WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO THE VARIOUS MOTIVES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF OFFENSES AND OFFENDERS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SOME BASIC QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING, SUCH AS THOSE RECOMMENDED IN PROPOSALS TO CURTAIL JUDGES' DISCRETION, ARE UNDERTAKEN. THESE QUESTIONS CONCERN THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND MOTIVATIONAL BASIS OF JUDICIAL SANCTION, WAYS OF INTEGRATING PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY, THE EXTENT TO WHICH JUDGES' FLEXIBILITY SHOULD BE LIMITED, AND THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FACTORS THAT SHOULD LEGITIMATELY INFLUENCE SENTENCES. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS PROVIDED. (LKM)