THE SENTENCING PROVISIONS OF S. 1437 DEEMPHASIZE THE VALUE OF REHABILITATION BY PROMOTING INCAPACITATION AND DETERRENCE AS THE GOALS OF SENTENCING. HOWEVER, THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT THE MORE UNIFORM SENTENCES, AND POSSIBLY MORE LONGER SENTENCES, THAT MAY RESULT FROM S. 1437 WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE CRIME. THE SENTENCING REFORM PROPOSALS SHOW ONLY A MILD INTEREST IN USING THE CORRECTIONS EXPERIENCE TO DEAL WITH THE BASIC CAUSES OF CRIME. THE PROPOSED SENTENCING COMMISSION IS MANDATED TO CREATE VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF OFFENSES, USING DELINEATED CRITERIA. THE COMMISSION WOULD ALSO ESTABLISH CATEGORIES OF DEFENDANTS BY CONSIDERING SPECIFIED FACTORS. FOR EACH CATEGORY OF DEFENDANT AND OFFENSE, THE COMMISSION WOULD RECOMMEND A RANGE FOR A PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCE. SUCH CATEGORIZATIONS PRECLUDE THE REGULAR POSSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALIZING SENTENCES IN THE INTEREST OF REHABILITATION. ALSO, THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE OF S. 1437 IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. BY INSULATING SENTENCES SET WITHIN THE GUIDELINES FROM APPELLATE REVIEW, SENTENCING JUDGES ARE ENCOURAGED TO FOCUS ON A TABLE OF SENTENCES RATHER THAN ON THE INDIVIDUAL OFFENDERS BEFORE THEM. CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION IS INVOLVED IN DETERMINING INTO WHICH CATEGORIES OF DEFENDANTS AND OFFENSES A GIVEN CASE SHOULD BE PLACED FOR SENTENCING. BOTH DEFENSE COUNSEL AND PROSECUTION SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS DETERMINATION. BY INTRODUCING THE ADVERSARIAL ELEMENT TO THIS ASPECT OF SENTENCING, AN INCENTIVE WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR BRINGING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE JUDGE ALL MATTERS BEARING UPON THE SENTENCING DECISION. TO ACHIEVE ITS END OF PROMOTING SENTENCING UNIFORMITY, S. 1437 SHOULD ALSO BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE COURTS THE MEANS TO REVIEW PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION; OTHERWISE, DISPARITIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ARE SIMPLY DISPLACED TO THE PROSECUTOR, WHO DETERMINES THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES TO BE BROUGHT AND THUS THE PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCES THAT WILL FOLLOW SHOULD THERE BE A CONVICTION. (RCB)