The sentencing approach proposed by Norval Morris would have a judge decide, within legislatively defined limits, the specific penalty 'deserved' in the case. Within that constraint, he would give the judge discretion to use the purposes of deterrence, incapacitation, or treatment, but only to impose a lesser penalty than what is 'deserved,' never to impose a greater penalty. The principal concern of Leslie Wilkins' sentencing approach is that the various sentencing goals be imposed with equity within the statutory framework fixed by the legislature. An offender would receive a sentence within the statutory range for an offense based on how the particular offense ranked on a seriousness scale and how personal characteristics are ranked on a risk scale. The third approach, proposed by Andrew von Hirsch, uses desert as the central organizing principle. The following three principles apply: (1) the severity of punishment would be commensurate with the seriousness of the offense and prior offenses; (2) a precise presumptive sentence would be set by rule for each gradation of seriousness of offense and prior record; and (3) variation from the presumptive (deserved) sentence would be allowed to a limited degree for other sentencing purposes. Problems derived from each of these approaches are identified as portrayed in the seminar debate. A total of 65 footnotes are listed.