A key element in sentencing is the distribution of diffusion of power whereby decisions that determine the actual fate of convicted offenders are made by several persons. The current movement toward determinate sentencing deliberately reduces the power of the patrol authorities but may inadvertently enhance the power of corrections departments or prosecutors. Failure to consider actual sentencing power in making reforms may lead to ineffective changes. Two historical-legal case studies of the distribution of power in Michigan sentencing laws show that sentencing laws are determined as much by overtly political factors as by more rational variables. The first case (People v. Moore) shows how the legislature, supreme court, and consititution acted and were used to affect the distribution of sentencing power. The second (People v. Cummings) examines the power of the Michigan Supreme Court to affect the sentencing structure. The Michigan Supreme Court's unique action of declaring indeterminate sentencing laws unconstitutional was a manifestation of the court's power. Two types of policy analysis of sentencing are undertaken, value analysis and empirical analysis. The analysis is confined to one city (Detroit) and to a narrow range of sentencing problems which focus on the sharing of power. The data show sentencing disparity attributable to different judicial officers and a moderate amount of racial disparity. The proposed sentencing model recommends that all key factors in sentencing be formally organized to make rules to modify the discretionary functions of member agencies. Chapters include extensive footnotes and tables. Approximately 250 references and 115 law cases are cited. (Author abstract modified)