Many writers confuse or interchange the words 'diversion' and 'intervention.' 'Diversion,' as explained by the U.S. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), refers to the removal of minor cases involving low-risk offenders from judicial adjudication; 'intervention' is defined by LEAA to involve rehabilitation efforts for offenders. 'Diversion' may occur with or without 'intervention.' The discretionary use of diversion raises legal issues associated with due process and just deserts. These principles require that similar offenders be similarly disposed in accordance with the severity of their offenses, based on past, proven criminal behavior. Diversion schemes must take these principles into account. Diversion schemes have been largely ineffective in achieving laudable criminal justice goals because judges have used them to clear their calendars quickly, prosecutors have used them to increase their leverage over defendants, and offenders have used them to minimize punishment for their crimes. Diversion is most effective when it serves the victim. This occurs when it services family victims of incest offenders, helps drug and alcohol offenders stop victimizing themselves, and facilitates the offender's compensation of the victim for losses. Other laudable goals for diversion are to permit case disposition in accordance with a defendant's minority ethnic cultural values and to expedite sentencing. Diversion implementation suggestions include garnering community support for the scheme and providing for evaluation before full implementation. 3 references.