TO EMPIRICALLY EVALUATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERING POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND DIFFERING JUDICIAL SELECTION SYSTEMS, COMPARATIVE RESEARCH WAS UNDERTAKEN ON MINNEAPOLIS, A REFORM-TYPE GOVERNMENT, AND PITTSBURGH, A TRADITIONAL-TYPE GOVERNMENT. SENTENCING DECISIONS WERE COMPARED STATISTICALLY FOR THE NINE MOST COMMON FELONY OFFENSES. TO UNDERSTAND THE JUDGES' ATTITUDES, COURTROOM BEHAVIOR AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES, JUDGES WERE INTERVIEWED AND COURTROOM PROCEDURES WERE OBSERVED. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND IN THE SENTENCING DECISIONS. ON THE WHOLE, DECISIONS WERE MORE LENIENT IN PITTSBURGH THAN IN MINNEAPOLIS. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE MINNEAPOLIS JUDGES TEND TO BE MORE ORIENTED TOWARD 'SOCIETY' AND ITS NEEDS AND PROTECTION THAN TOWARDS THE DEFENDANT. THEY WERE MORE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE GOALS OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL PEERS AND THEIR DECISION-MAKING WAS LEGALISTIC AND UNIVERSALISTIC. THE PITTSBURGH JUDGES TYPICALLY WERE ORIENTED TOWARD THE DEFENDANT, AND TENDED TO LACK ORIENTATION TOWARD PUNISHMENT OR DETERRENCE. THEIR DECISION-MAKING WAS NONLEGALISTIC IN THAT IT TENDED TO BE PARTICULARISTIC, PRAGMATIC, AND BASED ON POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. THE RELATIVE MERITS OF EACH SYSTEM ARE DISCUSSED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)