The principal subjects of investigation in the interviews were whether the system was perceived to be fair in dealing with disciplinary offenses, suggestions from various protagonists on ways to treat serious disciplinary offenses, the role of informal measures for maintaining discipline, and the adequacy of existing punishments. All parties agreed that the most important factor determining fairness of the Board of Visitors' and Governors' adjudications was the opportunity they afforded for inmates to present their side of the case. There was disagreement on how much this goal was achieved in practice. Fairness was not necessarily the same in this case as impartiality because the system would always be biased against the inmate. It was not unexpected that inmates preferred serious charges to be dealt with by outside courts that provide automatic legal representation and all the other benefits of a public hearing. Officers and governors surprisingly agreed with this option, though they may have failed to distinguish between especially grave offenses, now dealt with by courts, and serious offenses, now dealt with by Boards of Visitors. Lack of adequate facilities and privileges in prisons has resulted in the disciplinary system becoming too reliant on the use of forfeiture of remission as a punishment. To approach the problem of control by simply removing existing privileges was recognized as unrealistic. 7 tables, 1 note, and 7 references. (Author abstract modified)