Four sentencing aims widely debated are (1) deterrence, which views sentencing as a painful infliction that will not only keep the offender from repeating the offense but inhibit potential offenders from committing offenses; (2) incapacitation, which perceives sentencing as a means of restraining the offender from committing further crimes during the sentencing period; (3) treatment, which considers sentencing as the structure for providing rehabilitative treatment for the offender; and (4) desert, which views sentencing as the dispensing of punishment in strict accordance with the severity of the crime committed. Until the last few years, sentencing principles have been tailored to the treatment goal, as indeterminate sentencing has kept the offender under the jurisdiction of the state until sufficient evidence of the development of law abiding behavior has been provided. In recent years, such a pattern of sentencing has been viewed as arbitrary, unfair, and ineffective in accomplishing specified objectives. Determinate sentencing based upon offense severity has been preferred by many States as a means of ensuring the reduction of sentencing disparity and fairness in the treatment of offenders. Further, many would separate rehabilitation from sentencing by making rehabilitation programs voluntary. Sentencing discretion has been reduced through such practices as mandatory sentencing for specific offenses, presumptive sentencing, and the provision of sentencing guidelines. The need appears to be the development of sentencing policy that ensures fairness while accomplishing the utilitarian aims of crime prevention, crime reduction, and offender rehabilitation. Thirty-four footnotes are listed.