The discussion begins with a review of public opinion research which found that the control of crime was not believed to be primarily in the domain of policing, but rather in the domain of the courts, which dispenses sanctions for offending. Civil society has been viewed by the public as having the larger role in controlling crime. The authors then show that security, as provided by a variety of policing agencies, and justice, as provided by the courts, are different concepts, although functionally similar in their effects. A discussion of the implications of this analysis focuses on the divided nature of the concepts of security and justice. Security involves subjective feelings of being safe and the objective probability of being victimized given specific conditions of risk. Justice is the process of dealing with persons charged with and convicted of specific crimes, and its credibility and validity rest on the belief that justice (the appropriate sanction applied to those actually guilty) is being done. Other implications discussed are ways in which justice and security complement one another and the importance of pursuing both the objectives of security and justice simultaneously and as effectively as possible but as separate domains. Should an imbalance occur in these two domains or they fail to remain separate, then the public welfare is not served. 66 references