concurring:
I concur that the judgment of sentence must be vacated and the case be remanded for resentencing. I do not, however, find that “regrettable]”.
No aspect of the criminal justice system more deserves criticism than the process of sentencing. Many sentences are arbitrarily lenient, many others arbitrarily severe. By its decisions in Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976), the Supreme Court has expressed its determination that sentences must become more rational and just.
One should not suppose-—as both the majority and dissent seem to suppose—that Riggins and Martin represent new law, which the Supreme Court has decided should be applied retroactively. The premise of indeterminate sentencing, which is Pennsylvania’s system, has always been that the sentencing judge in formulating the sentence will take into account the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant. The responsibility of the Supreme Court and of this court to review the sentence has long been established by statutes. And finally, the responsibility of the sentencing judge to state the reasons for the sentence has long been established by rules of the Supreme Court and of this court. The authorities in support of these propositions are collected *587and discussed in Riggins and Martin, both by the Supreme Court and in dissent in this court. The difficulty has been that generally speaking, no one has paid much attention to these authorities. In Riggins and Martin the Supreme Court has decided that such inattention must stop. Rather than regret, we should welcome, and should do all we can to implement, the Court’s decision.