THE SENTENCING SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES HAS ITS PROBLEMS. THERE IS MUCH DISPARITY IN SENTENCES HANDED DOWN, AND MUCH OF THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE CONSIDERABLE DISCRETIONARY POWER THAT IS ACCORDED JUDGES. THIS PROBLEM OF DISPARITY AND DISCRETION IS FURTHER COMPOUNDED BY A LACK OF STANDARD SENTENCE REVIEW. IN A QUEST FOR APPROPRIATE SENTENCING STANDARDS, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN 1968 ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR APPELLATE REVIEW. IT IS THIS JUDGE'S OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT EVERY SENTENCING DECISION BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW. THESE DECISIONS SHOULD BE IN TUNE WITH THE VARIOUS SENTENCING AIMS OF PUNISHMENT, RETRIBUTION, DETERRENCE, REHABILITATION, AND INCAPACITATION. ALTHOUGH BOTH PUNISHMENT AND RETRIBUTION WILL ALWAYS PERSIST IN THE SENTENCING SYSTEM, THESE AIMS DO NOT ALWAYS SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF SOCIETY. FIRST OFFENDERS, IN PARTICULAR, ARE MORE LIKELY TO BENEFIT FROM LENIENCY AND, PERHAPS, A FINE WOULD BETTER SUIT ALL INVOLVED. DETERRENCE IS QUESTIONED IN RELATION TO SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENT, AND THE ACCEPTED FACT THAT LONGER SENTENCES DETER MORE EFFECTIVELY IS CHALLENGED. REHABILITATION IS URGED, AND ALTHOUGH REHABILITATION HAS BECOME A DIRTY WORD WITH MANY, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT REHABILITATION HAS BEEN GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE. EXPANSION OF REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS IS RECOMMENDED, AND THE ALLOCATION OF NECESSARY FUNDING IS STRONGLY URGED. MINIMUM SENTENCING IS SUGGESTED AS A MEANS FOR CONTROLLING SOME OF THE DISCRETION THAT JUDGES PRESENTLY POSSESS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MLC)