EXPERIENCE WITH FEDERAL PAROLE GUIDELINES SHOWS THAT DESCRIPTIVE GUIDELINES CAN INSURE THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SENTENCING DECISIONS ARE MADE UNIFORMLY; HOWEVER, INCREASED UNIFORMITY MAY NOT INCREASE THE FAIRNESS OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS. WHILE A GUIDELINE SYSTEM CAN REDUCE WIDE DISPARITY IN DECISIONMAKING, THE RATIONALE UNDERLYING THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED CAN BE DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY. FOR EXAMPLE, PAROLE GUIDELINES ARE BASED ON AN ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES AND OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAKES THE PAROLE DECISON DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER A LENIENT OR HARSH SENTENCE HAS BEEN IMPOSED. SERIOUS JUDICIAL OR SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS OF THE POLICIES UNDERLYING PAROLE GUIDELINES HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ONLY DURING THE 1970'S. THIS RELUCTANCE TO QUESTION THE POLICIES IMPLEMENTED BY GUIDELINES UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR CAUTION IN THE CREATION OF GUIDELINES. SUCH CAUTION IS LACKING IN THE SENTENCING GUIDELINE SYSTEM CONTEMPLATED BY SENATE BILL S. 1437, WHICH, IN ADDITION TO DELEGATING TO A SENTENCING COMMISSION THE TASK OF CREATING GUIDELINES, WOULD ENTRUST THAT BODY WITH THE DUTY OF CREATING NATIONWIDE SENTENCING POLICY. GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE GUIDELINES REQUIRED BY THE SENATE BILL, THE TEMPTATION WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE SENTENCING COMMISSION TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE PAROLE BOARD AND CREATE GUIDELINES FIRST, FOLLOWED BY A LATER RATIONALIZATION OF POLICY. THUS, EXPERIENCE WITH THE FEDERAL PAROLE GUIDELINES INDICATES THAT INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE MAY NOT BE ACHIEVABLE BY DESCRIPTIVE GUIDELINES. OTHER APPROACHES SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED TO DEAL WITH UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITY. (RCB)