DOMINANT MODELS OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT ASSUME A TIGHT FIT BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS. AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL, ONE WHICH VIEWS CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISIONMAKING AS THE PRODUCT OF A LOOSELY COUPLED ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM, FOCUSES ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COURTS MAINTAIN AND OFTEN INCREASE THE INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY WITHOUT ACTUALLY CHANGING THEIR DAY-TO-DAY PRACTICES. BY TAKING ON NEW APPENDAGES DEMANDED BY CHANGES IN THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT (E.G., INVOLVING PROBATION OFFICERS IN THE SENTENCING PROCESS IN RESPONSE TO DEMANDS FOR INDIVIDUALIZED JUSTICE) AND THEN SELECTIVELY IGNORING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NEW APPENDAGES, THE COURTS PERPETUATE MYTH AND CEREMONY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. FOR EXAMPLE, DATA ON SENTENCING DECISIONS IN 504 ADULT FELONY CASES IN THE KING COUNTY COURT SHOW THAT, WHILE PROBATION OFFICERS ARE VERY ACTIVE IN THE SENTENCING PROCESS, THE OFFICERS' INFLUENCE ON SENTENCING DECISIONS IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THAT OF THE PROSECUTOR, WHOSE SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS TEND TO BE COLORED BY THE ORGANIZATIONAL NEEDS OF THE COURT. IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FINDING, PARTICULARLY ITS REFLECTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS' DOMINANT NEEDS FOR LEGITIMIZATION AND EFFICIENCY, ARE DISCUSSED. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)