RECOGNIZING THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF SENTENCING DISPARITIES, AND QUESTIONING THE REHABILITATIVE ORIENTATION OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCING MODEL, MANY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES HAVE ADVANCED A VARIETY OF POLICY PROPOSALS. THESE RANGE FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF DEFINITE SENTENCES TO THE USE OF VARIOUS PAROLE AND SENTENCING REFORM SCHEMES. REFORM MEASURES ARE EITHER BUILT ON THE PRESENT STRUCTURE AND REQUIRE MINIMAL LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE, OR THEY REPRESENT RADICAL DEPARTURES FROM INDETERMINATE SENTENCING AND CALL FOR EXTENSIVE LEGISLATIVE REFORMULATION. WHILE THE UNDERLYING SANCTION POLICY OF A SYSTEM CAN INCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF VON HIRCH'S 'JUST DESSERTS' THEORY OR APPLICATION OF DETERRENCE, THE AIMS OF THE POLICIES ARE THE SAME: REDUCE SENTENCING OPTIONS BY FORCING THE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT NORMAL, EXPECTED, PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCES FOR EVERY OFFENSE. AS WITH PAROLE OR SENTENCING GUIDELINES, JUDGES AND OFFICIALS MAY DEPART FROM THE SENTENCE NORM ONLY WITHIN A PRESCRIBED RANGE. UNLIKE GUIDELINES, PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCES DO NOT ALLOW FOR APPLICATION OF PREDICTION MODELS IN SENTENCING. REFORM SCHEMES ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HAVING PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES ASSUME THE LEGISLATIVE PREROGATIVE FOR SETTING SENTENCES, AND ALSO ADDRESS THE DUE PROCESS ASPECTS OF USING DANGEROUSNESS PREDICTION TECHNIQUES IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS. PRACTICAL ISSUES ARE RELATED TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SYSTEMS. WITH THE USE OF DETERMINATE SENTENCES, THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS COULD BECOME THE MOST IMPORTANT SANCTION APPLIERS. HOWEVER, MOST PROPOSALS FOR REFORM STILL LEAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCRETION WITH JUDGES, AND EVEN PERMIT SENTENCES TO DEVIATE FROM THE ESTABLISHED RANGE IF THE JUDGE CAN JUSTIFY THE DECISION IN WRITING. LONG-STANDING INTERESTS HELD BY OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE CHALLENGED BY ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE SENTENCING SYSTEM. DIAGRAMS AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.