Three random samples were selected from closed probation cases and court papers. The first sample consisted of a systematic sample of 983 cases in which defendants were sentenced with a probation report, while the second sample was a systematic sample of 836 cases in which defendants were sentenced without a probation report. The third sample consisted of a systematic sample of 100 cases in which the defendants were mainly in jail or received jail terms as a disposition, and in which the probation officer prepared a short report without either verification or a recommendation. Path analysis and discriminant analysis were used to analyze the data. In addition, two pilot studies were used to determine the important variables. Eight questions were posed and answered on the basis of the findings. The principal findings were that (1) judges relied heavily on recommendations of probation officers, (2) judges and probation officers were guided by a set of regularities in sentencing, (3) judges and probation officers showed a remarkable consistency with some variation in sentencing practices, and (4) defendants very often received individual attention in their cases. The findings also showed that both judges and probation officers were influential in sentencing defendants; there was no evidence of racial or ethnic discrimination in sentencing, and sentencing was a complex, rather than a simple process. Figures, tables, and footnotes are included. Approximately 100 references are provided. Appendixes present tables of zero order correlations and standard deviations. (Author abstract modified)