Oregon's guidelines rank offense severity and criminal history/risk of parole failure in a matrix to determine the initial parole release date. The legislature permits exceptions to the matrix because of aggravating or mitigating factors, but such discretion can be exercised only with explicit, reviewable, and written reasons. The board's rules generally have reduced disparity, but the absence of standards and guidelines at the front end of the justice system often frustrates the board's search for equity. Prosecutors have enormous discretion in charging and plea bargaining. For example, the operator of a drug treatment program has convinced some prosecutors to recommend it as an alternative to incarceration but with a suspended sentence to motivate the enrollee. Other sources of disparity include unusual crimes such as incestuous rape and differences in the ways prosecutors view aggravation. Trial court judges exercise considerable discretion and lack standards regarding an explicit sentencing policy, sentence length, and imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and consecutive sentences. Prison use and sentence length vary widely throughout the State. Judges meet infrequently to compare practices, in contrast to parole board members' decisions which are constantly subjected to peer reviews and appeals. The paper recommends that administrative rules be implemented to structure the prosecutor's discretion and that judges be given the option to apply the prison term or parole guidelines at sentencing or allow the parole board to set them. The parole board should not be eliminated even if reforms occur at the prosecutorial and judicial levels, because it provides an important review mechanism and is more representative of the population than the judiciary. Tables, 19 footnotes, and 7 references are included. See NCJ-87442.