STARTING FROM THE POSITION THAT THE 'REHABILITATIVE IDEAL' IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO A PENAL POLICY (AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH HAS NOW BECOME INSTITUTIONALIZED AND ALIEN TO TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE), THE AUTHOR, USING A FRAMEWORK DERIVED FROM THE SOCIOLOGY OF LAW, LOOKS AT ASPECTS OF REHABILITATION AS IT IS OPERATED IN THE COURTS AND IN CERTAIN PENAL INSTITUTIONS. HE SHOWS HOW THIS CONCEPT OF REHABILITATION HAS HAD AN IMPORTANT BUT HARMFUL EFFECT ON PENAL POLICY. HIS CLAIM IS THAT THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL IS 'ANTI-LEGAL', AS ITS SUPPORTERS ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE PSYCHO-SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE LABELLED DEVIANT THAN WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH PROVIDES THE LEGAL NORMS. IT ALSO PRESERVES THE ROLE OF THE EXPERTS WHO ARE EXPECTED TO, AND INDEED CLAIM TO, KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THE DEVIANT'S FUTURE WELFARE. USING THESE TWO THEMES, THE AUTHOR EXAMINES SENTENCING, SOCIAL ENQUIRY REPORTS AND MODERN PRISON POLICIES AS THEY AFFECT TEHABILITATION. THE CONCLUDING CHAPTER IS BASED ON A PLEA FOR A RETURN TO CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE AND AWAY FROM DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PERSONAL LIVES OF DEVIANT MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)