In the spring of 1977, the survey was administered to a random sample of 2,500 households in Pennsylvania with questions regarding demographic information, extent of victimization among respondents, and respondents' attitudes on appropriate prison terms for convicted offenders. The two main issues addressed were the degree of consensus within the population about appropriate sentences for different offenses and the relationship between the desired sentences expressed by the public and the actual time served by offenders in prison. Analysis suggests considerable agreement across various demographic groups on the relative severity of sentences to be imposed for different offenses, but it also shows disagreement over the absolute magnitude of these sentences. These results indicate both the feasibility of generating consensus on a proportional, just desert sentencing schedule and the difficulty in establishing the 'constant of proportionality.' The sentences desired by the public are found to be consistently more severe than sentences actually imposed, implying the need for greater public awareness of current imprisonment practices so that expectations of the determinate sentencing schedules will be realistic and consistent with limited prison capacity. Attention would have to be paid to such problems as prison overcrowding, budgetary constraints, and the deleterious effects of imprisonment on inmates and society in general. Extensive supporting tables and 33 references are provided. (Author abstract modified)