Until 1974, sentencing under the Sherman Act was relatively indulgent. That year, however, the augmentation of penalty provisions demonstrated a congressional desire to increase the harshness of punishments. However, the law did not provide sentencing judges with guidance regarding the factors to be considered in formulating criminal sentences for antitrust violators. Although general deterrence is the most controversial justificiation for sentencing, it is also the one most often used. Fines and imprisonment are the traditional penalties for antitrust violations. Some judges have imposed alternative sentences consisting of some form of community service. Legislators, lawyers, and judges disagree regarding the relative value of fines and imprisonment as a sentence. Those who favor fines argue that it achieves the same result as imprisonment but at less cost to society. Others view fines as ineffective. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department strongly advocates imprisonment. The Division adopted guidelines designed to encourage uniformity in sentencing and stricter sentencing. The guidelines list six factors to be considered in sentencing: the amount of commerce involved, the position of the individual in the corporation and in the conspiracy, the existence and degree of predatory coercive conduct involved in the conspiracy, the duration of the defendant's participation, and prior convictions. Mitigating factors include cooperation with the Government; business, family, or personal hardship; and facts indicating that the conspiracy was small or local. Sentencing judges also consider the nature of the offense. However, equity is their ultimate guide. Nevertheless, different sentences are not necessarily unfair. Legislative direction would substantially simplify the sentencing decision. Footnotes are provided.