Since we are imperfect-and there are no discernible signs that we are remotely approaching a spiritual state of perfection-many of our regulatory social processes are concomitantly imperfect. One of these lessthan-perfect processes is the procedure for imposing sanctions upon convicted criminal offenders. The dramatic impact of this procedure seems to heighten its imperfections. In our federal government, this procedure has remained exclusively judicial. But, there is a growing dissatisfaction, not only among the lay, but among lawyers and judges as well, with the judicial sentencing process.' The dissatisfaction centers around what has been commonly referred to as disparity in sentencing. It is claimed that there is too wide a range of sentences by different judges for the same offense and even by the same judge. Indeed some have gone so far as to say that the standards in the case of judge-imposed sanctions are vague and almost non-existent.' In the past few decades, as our population has increased, so has crime,3 so has the number of offenders,4 so has the number of judges.' With the increase in crime and the expansion of our judicial system, there has been