TRADITIONALLY, THE CRIMINAL SENTENCE SERVES ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: PUNISHMENT; REHABILITATION; DETERRENCE; OR INCAPACITATION. LIKE OTHER HUMAN ORGANIZATIONS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES SELDOM CONSISTENTLY RELATE THEIR OPERATIONS TO A VISIBLE, COORDINATED GROUP OF PURPOSES. OFTEN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PERCEIVE THE SYSTEM'S FUNCTION DIFFERENTLY. FOR EXAMPLE, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION OFFICIALS MAY BE CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH INCAPACITATION AND DETERRENCE, PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS WITH REHABILITATION, AND JUDGES WITH A MIXTURE OF PUNISHMENT AND REHABILITATION. PUNISHMENT AS A CONCEPT DOES NOT LEND ITSELF EASILY TO EMPIRICAL EVALUATION. RESEARCH ON REHABILITATION AND DETERRENCE IS INCONCLUSIVE. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INCAPACITATION IS GENERALLY LACKING. THINKING WITH REGARD TO THE PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL SANCTION APPEARS TO BE FOCUSED ON PUNISHMENT, DETERRENCE, REHABILITATION, AND INCAPACITATION, IN THAT ORDER OF PRIORITY. PUNISHMENT IS BEING ADVOCATED IN ITS OWN RIGHT, NOT MERELY AS THE ONLY REMAINING OPTION AFTER ALL OTHERS HAVE BEEN AT LEAST PARTIALLY DISCREDITED AS PREEMINENT REASONS FOR CRIMINAL SANCTION. ONCE PUNISHMENT IS AGREED UPON AS THE PRIMARY GOAL, THE DISCUSSION TURNS TO THE RELATIVE MERITS OF DETERRENCE, REHABILITATION, AND INCAPACITATION AS SUBGOALS AND IN RELATION TO THE FORM OF SENTENCES. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT LEGISLATING NEW SENTENCING FORMS AND CHANGING PENAL PHILOSOPHIES ARE IN VOGUE. THOSE INTERESTED IN CHANGING CRIMINAL SENTENCING LAWS ARE URGED TO KEEP THEIR DELIBERATIONS IN PERSPECTIVE AND ARE REMINDED THAT THE DECISIONS MADE FOR THE PRESENT WILL BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE.