UNWARRANTED DISPARITY IN SENTENCING, WHICH POSES BOTH ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS, RESULTS FROM A COMBINATION OF THREE FACTORS: (1) THE LACK OF CLEARLY ARTICULATED AND ACCEPTED SENTENCING GOALS, PRIORITIES, AND CRITERIA; (2) THE SUBSTANTIAL DISCRETION ACCORDED SENTENCING JUDGES AND PAROLING AUTHORITIES IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH GOALS AND CRITERIA; AND (3) THE PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH SENTENCING DISCRETION IS EXERCISED. ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN LEGISLATIVELY ELIMINATING OR SEVERELY CURTAILING JUDICIAL SENTENCING DISCRETION THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF MANDATORY PENALTIES, A GUIDELINES MODEL APPEARS TO OFFER A BETTER APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF SENTENCING DISPARITY. UNDER THE GUIDELINES MODEL, A COLLEGIATE BODY (E.G., A SENTENCING COMMISSION) FORMULATES EXPLICIT SENTENCING POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH BROAD STANDARDS SET BY THE LEGISLATURE. THIS POLICY FORMULATION INVOLVES IDENTIFYING AND ARTICULATING PRIMARY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED AT SENTENCING AND THE WEIGHTS TO BE GIVEN TO THE FACTORS. FOR EACH COMBINATION OF MAJOR DECISION FACTORS, AN EXPLICIT POLICY IS PROVIDED. SENTENCING JUDGES ARE OBLIGATED TO APPLY THE GUIDELINES TO EACH CASE BUT RETAIN THE DISCRETION TO DEPART FROM THE GUIDELINES, GIVEN THAT THEY STATE THEIR REASONS FOR DOING SO. AN OPERATING EXAMPLE OF THE GUIDELINES MODEL IS FOUND IN THE DECISIONMAKING PRACTICES OF THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION. SENTENCING GUIDELINES CAN SUBSTANTIALLY STRUCTURE, CONTROL, AND CONFINE DISCRETION WITHOUT PRECLUDING INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION OF CASES OR MERELY TRANSFERRING DISCRETIONARY POWER TO LESS VISIBLE PARTS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE GUIDELINES MODEL HAS THE FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT AND MODIFICATION AS EXPERIENCE AND CHANGES IN SOCIAL ATTITUDES DICTATE. YET, UNLIKE MANDATORY SENTENCING, GUIDELINES PROVIDE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST HASTY OR EMOTIONAL POLICY SHIFTS ENGENDERED BY UNUSUAL BUT DRAMATIC INCIDENTS. AN EXPLANATION OF THE PAROLE COMMISSION'S DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AND A COPY OF ITS GUIDELINES ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)