The opening article identifies the major decisions confronting the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the outcomes of the decisions, and the pros and cons of these decisions. The most important decision involved the Commission's developing a policy for sentencing on its own initiative rather than trying to capture and mandate existing sentencing practices. A preliminary analysis of sentencing practices before and after implementation of the Minnesota sentencing guidelines examined the impact of guideline policy on sentencing practices, uniformity in sentencing, proportionality in sentencing, and severity of sentences and the neutrality of social factors in sentencing. Generally, the guidelines were being implemented as planned. Overall, the Minnesota sentencing guidelines appear to benefit defendants, when consideration is given to plea negotiations, sentencing appeals, criminal history scores, and the defendant's right to refuse probation. Unfettered and unprincipled plea negotiating was found to undermine the intent of the sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing uniformity and proportionality; prosecutors' drafting of their own guidelines for plea negotiations is recommended. One article notes that the sentencing reforms in the proposed Federal criminal code are designed to achieve a rationality, uniformity, and fairness that have not previously existed in Federal sentencing. The concluding presentation considers the legislative history of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines, their intent and operation, the State supreme court's interpretations of the guidelines, and how the Minnesota system compares with systems in five other States. For individual entries, see NCJ 88824-29.