The authors contend that no objective standards or principles appear to guide the practices of decisionmakers, resulting in sentencing disparity and ineffective sanctions. Perceptions of increasing crime, unwarranted differences in sentences, and ineffective rehabilitation programs have stimulated interest in reform. Studies summarized in the text demonstrate the inconclusiveness of empirical evidence concerning sentencing disparity and the effect of rehabilitation on future criminal behavior. The monograph discusses the discretionary power of those making judicial and parole decisions. Proposed and existing reforms result in confining, structuring, and checking discretionary power. Practices to check discretionary power include appellate review of the sentence, sentencing councils, and disclosure of presentence reports. The annotated bibliography lists 122 books, 329 articles, and 4 bibliographies. The monograph includes a subject index and chapter notes.