AFTER REVIEWING OPINIONS CALLING FOR AN END TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCING, THE WITNESS SUMMARIZES THE FOLLOWING POINTS OF CONSENSUS AMONG EXPERTS: (1) SENTENCING CRITERIA SHOULD BE STATUTORILY REQUIRED AND BASED ON CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENDERS AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE; (2) SENTENCES SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE; AND (3) SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE USED ONLY IF SATISFACTORY COMMUNITY-BASED SANCTIONS CANNOT BE FOUND. SEVERAL STATES HAVE INSTITUTED DETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS, INCLUDING MAINE, ILLINOIS, AND CALIFORNIA. THE BILL CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE IGNORES SOME PRINCIPAL ISSUES AND IS CONTRARY TO MANY STATE ACTIVITIES CONCERNING DETERMINATE SENTENCING. THE BILL HAS NO FORCEFUL STATEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY, BUT HAS MANY PROVISIONS IMPLYING SUPPORT FOR THE REHABILITATION MODEL. IT ALSO ELIMINATES THE PRESUMPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT THAT HAS BEEN A MAINSTAY OF FEDERAL POLICY. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION PROVISION IS VAGUE, COMPETES WITH THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, AND CONFERS EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY FOR SETTING GUIDELINES WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH WOULD BE TO ABOLISH THE PAROLE COMMISSION AND SET LOWER MAXIMUM SENTENCES TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL TIME SERVED FOR A FELONY. POSTINSTITUTIONAL SUPERVISION COULD BE VOLUNTARY AND DIRECTED TOWARD REINTEGRATION. DETERMINATE SENTENCING, MITIGATED ONLY BY THE CONVICT'S LAWFUL BEHAVIOR WHILE INCARCERATED, WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC CREDIBILITY IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND REDUCE PRISON TENSION.