Presumptive sentencing guidelines are defined as sentencing guidelines developed by a specialized agency and that have some formal legal authority. Three distinct clusters of problems confound any proposal for sentencing reform: the substance and illusion of plea bargaining, adaptive responses by case participants to achieve their particular goals, and the trade-off between judicial and prosecutorial discretion. Three possibilities exist for dealing with circumvention of guidelines through plea bargaining: (1) 'real-offense' sentencing, under which the court applies the guideline applicable to the actual offense behavior; (2) 'blind sentencing' procedures, under which the judge would not be informed as to whether the defendant pled guilty or went to trial; and (3) express discounts for a guilty plea, which would be incorporated into the guidelines table. Also examined are appellate review and the comparative benefits of de facto appellate review by a parole agency, as well as the internal administrative procedures for securing greater compliance. Twenty-five references are listed.