The survey on the purposes of sentencing involved interviews with 113 probation officers in 28 Federal districts, as well as 264 active Federal judges in all districts. Also interviewed were 108 Federal prosecutors, 110 defense counsel, 1,248 members of the general public, and 550 incarcerated Federal offenders. In attempting to determine the degree of consensus among Federal judges, probation officers, and others about the goals of sentencing and the efficacy of the system in achieving these goals, five goals of sentencing were identified for the purposes of interviews: general deterrence, special deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and just deserts. Results showed that probation officers and judges generally regard deterrence and incapacitation as more important goals of sentencing than either rehabilitation or just deserts. In extracting data from 5,781 Federal presentence reports to analyze sentencing decisions and the quality of information in presentence reports, it was found that Federal judges tend to give tougher sentences to offenders who (1) commit more serious crimes; (2) have more extensive criminal histories; and (3) choose to take their chance at trial under a 'not guilty' plea rather than accept a plea bargain under a 'guilty' plea. Presentence reports were found to be incomplete, particularly in providing information on the offender's social background, and some of the information was unclear and subject to a number of interpretations. Tabular data and 46 footnotes are provided.