Following Martinson's (1974) and Brody's (1976) contentions that prison programs do not rehabilitate offenders, Petersilia, Greenwood, and Lavin (1978) launched career criminal-selective incapacitation studies to lay the groundwork for realigning criminal justice strategy. These studies suggest the feasibility of identifying habitual and dangerous criminals at an early point in their criminal careers so they may be incarcerated for long periods and thus be prevented from inflicting their criminality on the public. The studies project that selective incapacitation of such prolific and dangerous offenders will reduce crime and increase public protection. Moore, Estrich, McGillis, and Spelman (1984) have argued against selective incapacitation, reasoning that criminality predictions are inaccurate at early stages of a criminal career and have little effect when applied near the end of a criminal career. They also argue that the continuing entry of new offenders into the marketplace of crime will dissipate incapacitation effects. Further, since the criminal justice system already focuses on the most dangerous offenders, there is little room for greater selectivity. Also, the intense focus on a minority of offenders may give minor offenders the sense that their offenses are of little concern to the criminal justice system. A significant danger of a selective incapacitation system is that it may be abused to target a particular social or racial class for extended incapacitation. 11 references.