This problem has not been addressed squarely to date because of the
fragmented nature of the various reform movements. Plea-bargaining
reforms have been attempted without a simultaneous attempt to control
sentencing discretion. A comprehensive approach would begin to ex-
plore the possibility of simultaneously imposing controls over these
interrelated decisions.

The administration of criminal justice in the United States has come a
long way in the past thirty years. The most important change has been
an intellectual revolution which has focused attention on the phenom-
enon of discretion. This has been accompanied by a legal and admin-
istrative revolution, which has imposed a number of controls over
discretionary decision points. The basic conclusion of this interim report
is that the control of discretion is possible. Some things work. The task
that lies ahead involves assessing in great detail the conditions of suc-
cessful discretion control and developing a more comprehensive ap-
proach to the problem. The system has not been fully tamed, but a start
has been made. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be
done. The real difference between today and thirty years ago is that we
now understand the nature of the problem, we have been disabused of
our belief in simple solutions, and we have a sense of the general
direction future reform should take.

-156-