Pursuing consistency in an individualistic sentencing framework: If you know where you're going, how do you know when you've got there?

PURSUING CONSISTENCY 267 without ranking, sentencing purposes and aggravating and mitigating factors, which judges may be required to consider or which may be merely advisory. 8Within this statutory structure, judicial discretion is regulated by the common law as developed by appellate courts.The tension between individualized justice and consistency is reflected in the potential difference between a sentence based on the circumstances of an individual case and one based on comparison with similar cases.9 The sentencing discourse regarding the relationship between individualized justice and consistency is mediated through the concept of judicial discretion, which is regarded as a crucial component of fair sentencing because it enables abstract legal rules to be applied to real-life offenses.The orthodox view holds that a "broad" 10 judicial discretion to choose between sentencing purposes and options is "vital," 11 because it alone safeguards individualized justice by freeing judges to tailor sentences to the "wide variations of circumstances of the offence and the offender" 12 that are "unique" 13 to each case.14 On this understanding, broad judicial discretion, individualized justice, and fair sentencing outcomes are directly related.There is a deep "cultural resistance to modification of judicial discretion within the judiciary and the legal profession generally," a concept that is sometimes couched in terms of judicial independence.15 This "strong" view of individualized justice is frequently conflated with the notion of fair sentencing. A. The Individualist ApproachThe individualist approach is underpinned by certain widely repeated and strongly held propositions: 17  Because the discretion entrusted to sentencing judges is of "vital importance" 18 in the administration of criminal justice, it is required 19 that this discretion be "very