PUNISHMENT CONVENTIONALLY IS EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF A FEW FINITE PURPOSES: DETERRENCE; REHABILITATION; INCAPACITATION; AND RETRIBUTION. THE MOVEMENT TOWARD DETERMINATE SENTENCING AND AWAY FROM REHABILITATION SUGGESTS A RETURN TO THE RETRIBUTIVE TRADITION. HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM AND PHILOSOPHY OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING REVEALS A FUNDAMENTAL BREAK WITH THE RETRIBUTIVE TRADITION OF PUNISHMENT ACCORDING TO GENERIC CATEGORIES OF CONDUCT. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING ARE CRITICAL OF REHABILITATION AS A GROUND FOR INDIVIDUALIZED DISCRETION, PROPOSING DESERT (I.E., WHAT IS DESERVED BY AN INDIVIDUAL FOUND GUILTY OF WRONGDOING) AS AN ALTERNATIVE BASIS FOR DETERMINING SANCTIONS. THE PHILOSOPHY OF PUNISHMENT HAS SHIFTED GRADUALLY FROM A FOCUS ON VENGEANCE AND EXPIATION TOWARD INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS RELEVANT TO FAIRNESS. THE MOVEMENT TOWARD REGULARIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH FACTORS PLACES PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON HARM AND CULPABILITY AS MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE CONCEPT OF SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME COMMITTED. THE DETERMINATE SENTENCING MOVEMENT, ALTHOUGH A REACTION TO THE EXCESSES OF DISPARATE SENTENCING, RECOGNIZES THE SEPARATION OF SANCTIONS FROM A STRICT RELATION TO SYMBOLIC CATEGORIES OF CONDUCT AND ATTEMPTS TO REORDER SANCTIONS ACCORDING TO A REGULARIZED BALANCE OF PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)