GOALS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE PENAL SYSTEM, WHICH PRODUCED THE REPORT, WERE TO CONSIDER BOTH THE STRUCTURE AND LEVEL OF MAXIMUM SENTENCES AND TO DETERMINE THEIR VALIDITY AS A GUIDE TO SENTENCING PRACTICE. THE COUNCIL'S REPORT CORRECTLY NOTED THAT CURRENT MAXIMUM PENALTIES ARE BASED ON HISTORICAL ACCIDENT RATHER THAN ON ANY RATIONAL PENAL OR SENTENCING POLICY. NEVERTHELESS, THE COUNCIL'S REPORT TRIED TO CREATE AN IMPRESSION THAT ITS PROPOSALS REPRESENTED LITTLE CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO. IT THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT FOR ORDINARY OFFENDERS THE NEW MAXIMUM PENALTIES ENCOMPASS 90 PERCENT OF EXISTING SENTENCES FOR EACH OFFENSE, AND THAT FOR EXCEPTIONAL OR DANGEROUS OFFENDERS, JUDICIAL DISCRETIONARY POWERS BE EXTENDED TO PERMIT EVEN LONGER SENTENCES. SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN MOST CURRENTLY STATED MAXIMUM PENALTIES WOULD RESULT FROM THIS CHANGE. THIS TWO TIER SYSTEM MAY HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN AN EFFORT TO GAIN PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF THE MAIN PROPOSALS, WHICH WERE TO REDUCE MOST MAXIMUM PENALTIES, BUT IT OVERLOOKED THE BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT QUESTIONS THE VALIDITY OF THE CONCEPT OF DANGEROUSNESS AND IN ADDITION PUBLIC ATTENTION FOCUSED ONLY ON THE SENTENCE REDUCTION PROPOSALS. ABSENT OR VAGUE STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE FURTHER COMPOUNDED THE LATTER PROBLEM. IN CONTRAST, THE COUNCIL'S INTERIM REPORT CONTAINED MUCH CLEARER AND FRANKER DISCUSSION. THE FINAL REPORT SHOULD HAVE STATED CLEARLY ITS PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL TARIFF, RETRIBUTION, AND DENUNCIATION. EXTENSIVE PUBLIC DEBATE AND CLEAR ARTICULATION OF PRINCIPLES AND APPROPRIATE STRUCTURES AND NOW NEEDED TO RESOLVE THESE PROBLEMS AND TO CLARIFY PENAL OBJECTIVES. A REFERENCE LIST IS INCLUDED. (CFW)