THIS CRITIQUE IS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES WHICH RELY ON MATRIX TABLES BASED ON OFFENSE SEVERITY AND PREDICTIONS OF RECIDIVISM. SUCH TABLES ASSUME THAT THE JUDGE IS THE KEY DECISIONMAKER IN THE SENTENCING PROCESS AND THAT SENTENCING DISPARITIES ARE CAUSED BY DIFFERING JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES. SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR DISPARITY ARE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE BUREAUCRATIZATION OF SENTENCING, IMPERFECT INFORMATION RESULTING FROM THE NATURE OF THE TRIAL PROCESS, AND POOR QUALITY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DEFENDANT. THE WORK OF THE SENTENCING COMMISSIONS SET UP ARE THEN REVIEWED, WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION UNDER THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION AND REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1975. PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING A SIMILAR COMMISSION FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL COURT PROCESS IS SUMMARIZED. THEN THE ISSUES OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND EQUALITY ARE DISCUSSED. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT A SENTENCING COMMISSION MUST RECONCILE MANY DIFFERING SOCIAL VALUES. VARIOUS MODELS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO BALANCE THE UTILITARIAN VERSUS THE RETRIBUTION THEORIES OF SENTENCING ARE DESCRIBED AND CRITICIZED. FINALLY A MODEL WHICH COMBINES EQUALITY IN SENTENCING WITH THE EFFICIENCY OF A CAREFULLY ADMINISTERED SYSTEM OF CATEGORIC PREDICTION IS PRESENTED. THIS MODEL PURGES ALL PREDICTIVE CRITERIA BASED ON STATUS AND PLACES GREAT WEIGHT ON THE SOCIAL COST OF THE CRIME. THE ARTICLE IS HEAVILY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)