Many methods of reducing prison populations have been advanced. Some argue that certain classes of felony crimes should be reclassified as misdemeanors or decriminalized completely. Others claim that a significant number of those convicted of felonies could be diverted from prison to probation and new forms of alternatives to prison, including intensive probation, house arrest, electronic surveillance, and greater use of fines and restitution. Historically, however, well-intentioned alternatives to prison have had marginal impact on reducing prison populations. Rather, they have had the unintended effect of widening the net of criminal justice by imposing more severe sanctions on people who otherwise would not be sentenced to prison. There is only one viable solution that would have an immediate and dramatic impact on prison crowding: shorter prison terms. This could be done swiftly and fairly through a number of existing mechanisms such as greater use of existing good-time credit status and the acceleration of parole eligibility. As demonstrated in several States, this would have no significant impact on crime rates. For such a policy to work, prison terms would have to be shortened across the board. Any attempt by legislators, judges, or parole boards to select certain categories of inmates for shorter sentences would compound the already discriminatory sentencing patterns and not produce population reductions. A maximum prison population should be determined by officials of each State and policies adopted that marginally reduce prison terms to avoid surpassing the maximum population. 36 references, 35 references, discussion questions, and suggested student applications of the chapter material