IN CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY THE MORAL FIT BETWEEN THE IMAGE OF THE CRIMINAL AND THE NATURE OF CRIMINAL POLICY WAS REASONABLY CLOSE. WITH THE POSITIVIST INTRODUCTION OF DETERMINISM AND ITS CONSEQUENT INVERSION OF THE NOTION OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE POTENTIAL FOR A NEW FIT BETWEEN IMAGE AND PUBLIC POLICY BEGAN. IN CRIMINAL POLICY, HOWEVER, THE GAP BETWEEN IMAGE AND POLICY STILL EXISTS. IN ADDITION, THE RESULTANT ATTACK ON POSITIVISM LEFT THE PROBLEM OF EXAMINING SUCH CONCEPTS AS GUILT, RESPONSIBILITY, AND CONSCIENCE UNRESOLVED. MORAL QUESTIONS WHICH POSITIVISM THREATENED AND RADICAL THEORY RENDERED CONFUSING HAVE REAPPEARED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLITICS IN RECENT YEARS. THE LAW-AND-ORDER LOBBY IS SAYING THAT THE LIBERAL TREATMENT MODEL IS MISTAKEN, AND WE SHOULD GO BACK TO A HARD-LINE, PUNITIVE APPROACH. AN EMPHASIS ON JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY IS STRESSED BY LIBERALS. IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP MIDDLE-RANGE POLICY ALTERNATIVES. THEORETICAL TASKS STILL REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED, INCLUDING RECONCILING THE CONCEPTS OF CLASSICAL AND POSITIVIST PHILOSOPHIES WITH INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, APPLYING AN ABSTRACT THEORY OF JUSTICE TO BRUTE FACTS OF THE SOCIAL ORDER, AND UNDERSTANDING THE NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY AND TOLERANCE. THESE TASKS MUST, HOWEVER, BE PERFORMED WITH AN EYE TOWARD THE FRAMEWORK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLITICS SINCE WITHOUT THIS FOCUS, THE OPPORTUNITY TO INFLUENCE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS DIMINISHED. REFERENCE NOTES ARE INCLUDED. SEE NCJ-58238. (LWM)