AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, IT IS UNWISE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO SPECIFY A MANDATORY, FIXED SENTENCE FOR ANY SERIOUS (INDICTABLE) CRIME, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE AT THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL TO FORESEE THE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN OFFENSE MAY BE COMMITTED. AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE, WHICH SETS NO MAXIMUM LIMIT, IS DESIGNED TO BASE THE LENGTH OF A SENTENCE UPON RESULTS IN REHABILITATION, BUT IS DISADVANTAGEOUS BECAUSE OF THE MANY POSSIBILITIES FOR ABUSE. A MINIMUM SENTENCE IN COMBINATION WITH A MAXIMUM IS USEFUL, IN THAT THIS PROVIDES LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE WHILE ALLOWING FOR JUDICIAL DISCRETION ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. THE USE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS A MAXIMUM, BUT NOT MANDATORY, SENTENCE SERVES A PURPOSE IN EXPRESSING LEGISLATIVELY THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH THE COMMUNITY VIEWS PARTICULAR CRIMES. THE COURT IS THE PRINCIPAL SENTENCING AUTHORITY SUBORDINATE TO THE LEGISLATURE. WHILE THERE IS MUCH CRITICISM OF THE INCONSISTENCY, DISPARITY, AND BIAS INVOLVED IN JUDICIAL SENTENCING, THE CRITICISM IS NOT PERSUASIVE ENOUGH TO WARRANT REMOVING SENTENCING FROM THE HANDS OF THE JUDICIARY. ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS, SUCH AS THE USE OF A NONJUDICIAL SENTENCING TRIBUNAL COMPOSED OF MEMBERS FROM A VARIETY OF PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINES, HAVE THE PRIMARY DISADVANTAGE OF SEPARATING THE SENTENCING FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL. THE PREFERRED REFORM IS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING THROUGH THE TRAINING OF JUDGES AND BETTERING INFORMATION COLLECTION FOR SENTENCING. IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC AND SENTENCING CONSISTENCY, PROSECUTION AS WELL AS OFFENDER APPEALS OF SENTENCES SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT IS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHERE AN OFFENDER WILL SERVE A PRISON SENTENCE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT SENTENCE MAY BE REDUCED BASED ON GOOD BEHAVIOR. THE RETICENCE OF THE COURTS TO REVIEW DECISIONS BY THE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT WHICH AFFECT THE CONDITIONS AND LENGTH OF A SENTENCE IS DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY. THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD BE ABOLISHED IN FAVOR OF SUBMITTING EARLY RELEASE DECISIONS TO THE JUDICIARY. THE ORIGINAL TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD BE INVOLVED, IF POSSIBLE. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED.