United States Sentencing Commission, 1986-87. It was twenty years ago that the first legislatively established Sentencing Commission was formed here in Minnesota. One measure of that idea's success is that there are now enough Sentencing Commissions to warrant a robust National Associa tion. A population of Sentencing Commissions sufficient for a national organization is not the only testimony to the idea's success. State Sentencing Commissions and the legislation that established them have changed the face of sentencing in at least four important ways: 1. Predictable sentencing, or, without putting too fine a point on it, truth in sentencing; 2. The availability of on-going, detailed information on sentencing practices; 3. Coordination between sentencing practices and correctional resources, or at least the ability to coordinate them; 4. Substantive appellate review of sentencing. This is a remarkable legacy and one of which we can all be proud. These accomplishments are all dependent upon balancing discretion in new ways, so it is fitting that the theme of this meeting is Balanc ing Discretion. In looking back over the past twenty years of Sentencing Commission history, the allocation of discretion is the fundamental issue which has impacted all major facets of Commission activity and accomplishments. These four accomplishments of Sentencing Commissions and their legislative partners, and the reallocation of sentencing discretion that supports these accomplishments, is the focus of this keynote address. I will disclose at the outset that I favor sentencing discretion in the hands of judges, in a structured manner, of course. I favor that distribution of discretion not only because I admire and respect judges, which I do, but because it makes for a better sentencing system than other distributions. Before I begin the celebration of accomplish ments, there are two things that I want you to note. First, Kevin Reitz from the University of Colorado Law School has designed a visual illustration of the distribution of sentencing discretion.1 That illustra tion displays two levels: The systematic or policy level, showing the legislature and the sentencing commission; and The case level, showing the prosecutor, judge, corrections, and parole. It is a useful tool for discussing the allocation and balance of sentencing discretion. After my remarks, Kevin will introduce the tool more thoroughly. I am particularly pleased to share this time with Kevin because he hosted what came to be the first national meeting of sentencing commissions in 1993. Second, I want to articulate what we all know, but what bears repeating regularly: Sentencing involves fundamental and complex issues. It is fundamental because it involves the state's ability to deprive citizens of their liberty and, in some states, their lives. It does not get any more fundamental than that. It is complex with respect to governance. All three branches of government ? legislature, executive and judicial ? are equally, consistently and deeply involved with the issue of sentencing. There is not another public policy issue similarly situated. The complexity of this policy issue makes the sentencing commissions' accomplishments over the past twenty years all the more remarkable.