IN AUSTRALIA, THE STATE HAS FOUR OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPOSE THE 'RIGHT' SENTENCE ON AN OFFENDER: (1) THE JUDGE MAY PASS SENTENCE; (2) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ACTING ON ADVICE FROM THE CROWN PROSECUTOR AND THE POLICE, MAY APPEAL AGAINST A SENTENCE CONSIDERED TO BE INADEQUATE; (3) THE PAROLE BOARD MAY ADD TIME TO A PRISONER'S SENTENCE; AND (4) THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, EXERCISING THE 'GOVERNOR'S PLEASURE,' MAY VETO FREEDOM FOR A PRISONER. IT IS ARGUED THAT INDETERMINATE SENTENCING PRACTICES ARE INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ACHIEVED THEIR PURPOSE AND ARE UNJUST BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT AN ATTEMPT TO BE BOTH PUNITIVE AND THERAPEUTIC AT THE SAME TIME. DESPITE THE INTRODUCTION OF PAROLE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN 1963, THE PRISON POPULATION ROSE STEADILY THEREAFTER, REACHING A PEAK IN 1972 AND FLUCTUATING WIDELY SINCE THEN. IN 1975, 304 PAROLLED PERSONS WERE RELEASED TO FREEDOM, BUT 153 HAD THEIR PAROLE CANCELLED AND WERE RETURNED TO PRISON. TEN OUT OF 33 'GOVERNOR'S PLEASURE' CASES RELEASED UNDER SUPERVISION IN 1974/75 BREACHED PAROLE AND WERE REIMPRISONED. ONE SOURCE OF CONFUSION IN DISCUSSIONS OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCING IS THAT ONE MAY OR MAY NOT VIEW THE MINIMUM SENTENCE AS PUNISHMENT AND THE PERIOD FOLLOWING AS AN 'EXTRA,' TO ALLOW FOR REFORMATION. SOME VIEW THE MINIMUM TERM AS THE PUNITIVE PART OF A SENTENCE, WHEREAS OTHERS SEE THE MAXIMUM TERM AS THE NORM, WITH ANY RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM A PRIVILEGE. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, DESPITE A NUMBER OF STUDIES, NO BETTER PREDICTOR OF PAROLE SUCCESS HAS BEEN FOUND THAN THE AGE OF THE PRISONER AND HIS PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD. ALTHOUGH THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE WHEN SENTENCE IS PASSED, THE TRIAL JUDGE, RATHER THAN PLACING AN APPROPRIATE FIXED SENTENCE, PASSES THE OFFENDER ALONG TO COOPERATE WITH THE 'REHABILITATION CHARADES' OF THE PAROLE BOARD. CASE STUDIES ILLUSTRATING THE INJUSTICE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA'S PAROLE PRACTICES, PARTICULARLY FOR MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS, ARE INCLUDED.