Behind the present move toward determinate sentencing structures is a perceived failure of rehabilitation, as well as concern about sentencing disparity, prison violence, and justice. The ideal of rehabilitation demands indeterminate sentencing, while the sentencing goals of deterrence, incapacitation, and just deserts requires determinate sentencing. A survey of determinate sentencing proposals, notably Fogel's 'justice model' and recently legislated systems in Maine, California, Indiana, and Illinois, shows that, while these sentencing structures are more restrictive than previous indeterminate ones, they by no means eliminate sentencing disparities. These reforms still retain elements of good time provisions, parole, and plea bargaining, and to the extent that sentencing structures contain these features, disparities in sentencing will continue to occur. Five tables providing comparisons of sentencing structures and 81 references are furnished.