In the United States, trial judges determine sentences 'conclusively, decisively, and finally.' This practice allows the judge to tailor the sentence to fit the specific offense and the individual offender. However, it also allows for disagreement over what constitutes an appropriate punishment for a given crime, with disparate sentences resulting. A criminal sentence that is arbitrary is inherently defective as a vehicle for rehabilitating offenders and deterring potential crime. The appeals process has proven to be an ineffective check on arbitrary sentences because most State criminal sentences cannot be reviewed without statutory authority, necessitating claims of error in previous trial conduct. Many States, particularly in New England, have attempted to solve the problem by establishing a sentence review system. For example, the New Hampshire sentence review statute provides for a panel of three superior court judges to review sentences of 1 year or more in the State prison unless by law only the sentence given could have been imposed. At the time of sentencing, the defendant must be given notice of the right to review. The sentencing judge may provide reasons for his decision, and he must do so if the review division so requests. Connecticut has established a similar procedure. Both systems face the same negative response from defense attorneys who discourage review applications because of the possibility of an increase in sentence as a result of review. In Maine, sentence review differs primarily in the composition of the tribunal. Despite problems with these systems, trial judges in New England have become more conscientious in making decisions. Footnote references are included in the article.