While methods of creating a determinate sentencing structure vary, they share the goal of reducing discretion available to decisionmakers in the sentencing process. Much information in this discussion was drawn from 20 jurisdictions who reported determinate sentencing reforms in a 1979-80 national survey. While some States have explicitly stated in the purpose of their new laws, others have failed to define their reforms' objectives. There are essentially three aspects of the sentencing decision: whether or not to incarcerate the offender, the severity of nonincarcerative dispositions if incarceration is rejected, and the duration of confinement if the decision is to imprison. Disparity can occur at any of these points, but most State sentencing reforms concern only the duration of imprisonment. State standards governing prison term length often differ in the number of distinct categories of offense or offender that they recognize for the purposes of punishment. However, these standards also have certain features in common: all prescribe a term or range of terms for categories of an offense or offender -presumptive disposition, all permit decisionmakers to vary from the presumptive term if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and some schemes allow the imposition of separate additional terms if certain factors are present in the offense. The paper also surveys State provisions governing the effects of good time and misconduct in prison on sentences imposed under a determinate system, as well as the new laws' approaches to parole supervision and postsentencing provisions. The analysis concludes that tremendous variation exists in the quality of determinate sentencing standards, largely because legislatures are inexperienced in this area, are subject to political pressures, and are unable to take a comprehensive view of sentencing. The article includes 48 footnotes, 2 case citations, and 24 references. See NCJ-87442.