ALL BUT FOUR STATES NOW HAVE STATUTES ESTABLISHING SOME SYSTEM OF GOOD TIME, USUALLY STIPULATING A VARIABLE REDUCTION BASED ON THE LENGTH OF THE SENTENCE, A FIXED RATE OF REDUCTION, OR A GRADUATED SYSTEM BASED ON THE OFFENDER'S CLASSIFICATION. THE TENDENCY HAS BECOME TO GRANT GOOD TIME AUTOMATICALLY AND TO WITHDRAW IT AS PUNISHMENT. REASONS FOR THIS INCLUDE THE ECONOMIC MOTIVE OF RELIEVING THE PUBLIC'S BURDEN, HUMANIZING COURT DECISIONS, CONTROLLING INMATE BEHAVIOR, AND INSURING PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS. THE WYOMING STATUTES PROVIDE FOR A GREAT DEAL OF COURT DISCRETION IN ADMINISTERING WHAT IS AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCING STRUCTURE, WHILE THERE IS A TENDENCY TO FIX THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SENTENCES, ALLOWING FOR A WIDE RANGE BETWEEN THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE AND THE MANDATORY RELEASE DATES. THE PAROLE BOARD USES THE ACCUMULATION OF GOOD TIME CREDITS AS A CONSIDERATION FOR GRANTING RELEASE ON OR ABOUT THE COMPLETION OF THE MINIMUM SENTENCE. THE CONTROVERSY OVER GOOD TIME INCLUDES LEGAL, MORAL, PROCEDURAL, PRACTICAL, PROFESSIONAL, AND SCIENTIFIC ISSUES SUCH AS LACK OF DUE PROCESS, APPLICATION IN EQUITIES AMONG OFFENDERS, AND SENTENCING. GOOD TIME AS AN ISSUE IS NECESSARILY SUBSUMED UNDER THE LARGER CONTROVERSY THAT NOW RAGES OVER DETERMINATE AS OPPOSED TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCING, AND THE ISSUES RAISED BY GOOD TIME WILL CONTINUE TO PLAGUE OFFENDERS, PRISON OFFICIALS, AND THE COURTS.