In enacting the legislation, the California legislature changed the purpose of imprisonment from rehabilitation to punishment. One paper asserts that the act's unique feature -- a systematic administrative review of all sentences to State prison -- has been successfully implemented by the State's judiciary. Another paper proposes sentencing guidelines based on a 'just deserts' policy as an alternative to a purely determinate system; a third analyzes policy issues regarding determinate sentencing and disparity reduction in the juvenile justice system. One author points out conceptual and methodological difficulties inherent in sentencing disparity research. A review of new State laws designed to reduce sentencing disparity considers presumptive terms, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, provisions for additional penalties, parole supervision, and postsentencing review. Another paper traces the development of sentencing disparity as a reform issue, describing the reform processes in California and Oregon and offering suggestions for would-be reformers. An analysis of the explicit decisionmaking guidelines adopted by the Oregon Board of Parole emphasizes that the absence of standards and guidelines for judges and prosecutors has frustrated the board's search for equity. Using data from Massachusetts, a study demonstrates that removing factors such as race from sentencing guideline models does not make them less discriminatory, contrary to expectations. Articles include references; an index is appended.