DISENCHANTMENT WITH THE POOR RECIDIVISM RECORDS OF THOSE 'TREATED' BY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS HAS LED TO A MOVEMENT TOWARD DEFINITE SENTENCES WITH INCARCERATION SEEN AS 'JUST PUNISHMENT' FOR THE CRIME COMMITTED. PART OF THIS MOVEMENT INCLUDES DEFINING JUST HOW MUCH TIME MAY BE TAKEN OFF THE SENTENCE FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR, SPELLING OUT THE AUTHORITY OF PAROLE ADMINISTRATORS IN SHORTENING A SENTENCE, AND MANDATING TIME WHICH MUST BE SPENT IN PRISON FOR A PARTICULAR CRIME. SINCE PAROLE IS DESIGNED TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INDEFINITE SENTENCE, WITH THE INCEPTION OF DEFINITE SENTENCE SYSTEMS, THE PURPOSE OF EARLY RELEASE THROUGH PAROLE VANISHES. ILLINOIS, MINNESOTA, AND MAINE LEGISLATION ALL ABOLISH PAROLE, WHILE THE NEW CALIFORNIA LAW RETAINS A PERIOD OF SUPERVISION FOLLOWING EXPIRATION OF THE PRISON TERM. IN MAINE, THE DEFINITE SENTENCE CODE SLIPPED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE QUIETLY AND BECAME LAW ON MARCH 1, 1976. IN ILLINOIS, THE DEFINITE SENTENCE PROVISION BECAME THE OBJECT OF STORMY DEBATE AND ELECTION YEAR POLITICS. DEBATE HAS BEEN CONTINUED INTO A SPECIAL SESSION AND, AS OF SEPTEMBER 1977, STILL HAD NOT PASSED. IN CALIFORNIA, SUCH SENTENCING WAS APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER, 1976, AFTER A LONG SERIES OF HEARINGS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY, THE STATE'S SENTENCING BODY, ISSUED A NEW SET OF REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR FIXED PAROLE RELEASE DATES. DEFINITE SENTENCING WILL PROBABLY NOT AFFECT THE AMOUNT OF TIME MOST OFFENDERS WILL BE INCARCERATED. THE FACT THAT REFORM ADVOCATES ARE USING MEDIAN TIME NOW SERVED AS A BASIS FOR PROPOSED SENTENCES WORKS AGAINST MUCH SHIFT. GIVEN THE PRESENT LACK OF PROSECUTION AND ADJUDICATIVE FACILITIES, DEFINITE SENTENCING WILL PROBABLY NOT AFFECT THE CERTAINTY OF PUNISHMENT. THE POTENTIAL FOR CRIME CONTROL IS ALSO UNCERTAIN. HOWEVER, DEFINITE SENTENCING WILL ENHANCE THE SYMBOLIC VALUES OF OPENNESS AND FAIRNESS AND MAY BE A MAJOR SUCCESS IF MEASURED AGAINST SO MANY OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS.