WHILE DISCRETION IN SENTENCING MAY RESULT IN UNFAIR OR DISCRIMINATORY SENTENCING PRACTICES, MANDATORY SENTENCES - BY IGNORING ALL MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES - MAY ALSO RESULT IN UNFAIR SENTENCES. THE BASIC PROBLEM ENCOUNTERED IN SENTENCING REFORM IS HOW TO PROVIDE FOR A BROAD RANGE OF PUNISHMENTS WITHOUT GENERATING UNFAIR AND INAPPROPRIATE DISPARITY THROUGH DISCRETION. A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS DILEMMA MAY BE THE USE OF A SENTENCING COMMISSION, WHICH WOULD ISSUE DETAILED SENTENCING GUIDELINES. JUDGES WOULD HAVE TO SPECIFY ALL REASONS FOR SENTENCING OUTSIDE THESE GUIDELINES, AND ALL SENTENCES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC REVIEW. THE AUTHOR PROPOSES THAT A SIMILAR APPROACH MAY BE TAKEN WITH REGARD TO PAROLE DECISION-MAKING, BY USE OF A PAROLE COMMISSION. ADDITIONAL REGULATORY COMMISSIONS COULD ALSO BE ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS PRIOR TO SENTENCING. SUCH AS ARREST, FILING OF CHARGES, AND BAIL DECISIONS. FINALLY, THE AUTHOR PROPOSES THAT DISCRETION MAY BEST BE REGULATED THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE 'CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION' IN EACH STATE AND AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THESE COMMISSIONS WOULD REGULATE AND COORDINATE THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AND PROVIDE UNIFORMITY WITHIN EACH COMPONENT OF THE SYSTEM....DMC