BASED ON A SAMPLE DRAWN FROM THREE OF OHIO'S SEVEN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND INCLUDING ALL THOSE MALE PRISONERS RECEIVING SHOCK PROBATION IN 1970, IT WAS DEMOSTRATED THAT JUDICIAL DISCRETION WAS AT VARIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL LAW IN SLIGHTLY OVER 41 PER CENT OF THE CASES. IN 74 CASES, OR 17 PER CENT OF THE SAMPLE, THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING TIME OF RELEASE WERE VIOLATED. IN ANOTHER 62 CASES, 15 PER CENT OF THE SAMPLE, THE REQUIREMENT PROHIBITING USAGE OF INSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR REPORTS WAS VIOLATED, AND 41 CASES, 9.2 PER CENT OF THE RELEASES SAMPLED, INVOLVED A VIOLATION OF BOTH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. OTHER LESS FREQUENT VIOLATIONS INVOLVED RELEASES OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE SHOCK PROBATION STATUTE WITHOUT PLACING THEM ON PROBATION AND RELEASES OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF NON-PROBATIONABLE OFFENSES. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, WHILE THESE FINDINGS DO NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE THAT THE JUDICIARY IS REMISS IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES, IT DOES DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF INTEGRATION AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WHERE THE CREATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF PENAL SANCTIONS IS INVOLVED. FURTHER RESEARCH INTO THE VARIABLES AFFECTING THIS ARE RECOMMENDED. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED....ELW