THE REHABILITATIVE MODEL OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OPERATES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE POSTCONVICTION PROCESS SHOULD BE ORGANIZED ALONG TREATMENT LINES. CONSEQUENTLY, INDETERMINATE SENTENCES, INMATE PROGRAMS, AND PAROLE HAVE BECOME KEY FEATURES OF THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE U.S. RECENTLY THIS REHABILITATIVE MODEL HAS COME UNDER INCREASING CHALLENGE ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT HAS LITTLE IMPACT ON CRIME, INTERFERES WITH DUE PROCESS VALUES, INCREASES THE LENGTH OF INCARCERATION, WIDENS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND REQUIRES DISCRETIONARY DECISIONMAKING WHICH ASSUMES THE ABILITY TO PREDICT FUTURE BEHAVIOR. FURTHERMORE, NOT ONLY IS THERE A LACK OF SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR SUCH PREDICTION, BUT ORGANIZATIONAL NEEDS RATHER THAN SCIENCE OR LAW OFTEN ARE CRUCIAL FACTORS IN SUCH DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS. ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE MAY PROCLAIM AN OFFENDER'S SENTENCE IN COURT, THE OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF THAT SENTENCE WILL BE DETERMINED BY A PAROLE BOARD WHICH IS FREE OF PUBLIC SCRUTINY, USUALLY HAS NO PUBLISHED CRITERIA FOR ITS DECISIONS, AND NEED OFFER NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE GRANTING OR DENIAL OF PAROLE. A STUDY OF PAROLE DECISIONMAKING IN CONNECTICUT FOUND THAT ALMOST EVERY FELON IS RELEASED ON PAROLE: ACTUAL TIME SERVED IS USUALLY LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SENTENCE PRONOUNCED; PAROLES ARE GRANTED FOR ABOUT 70 PERCENT OF THE CASES AT THE TIME OF FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE PAROLE BOARD; THER IS CONSIDERABLE VARIANCE IN THE BOARD DECISIONMAKING PROCESS; AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WEIGHT GIVEN TO JOB TRAINING AND WORK RELEASE, LITTLE EMPHASIS IS PUT ON VARIABLES RELATED TO TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION IN THE PAROLE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS. THE FINDINGS OF THE CONNECTICUT STUDY PROVIDE SOME SUPPORT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS OF PAROLE WHICH HOLD THAT PAROLE SERVES TO MITIGATE THE HARSHNESS OF THE PENAL CODE AND EQUALIZES DISPARITIES IN SENTENCINGS. THIS JUSTIFICATION, HOWEVER, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INMATES RECEIVING RELATIVELY SHORT SENTENCES WHO ACTUALLY SERVE A PROPORTIONALLY LONGER SENTENCE THAN DO THOSE WITH MORE SEVERE SENTENCES. FURTHER, THE JUSTIFICATION THAT PAROLE CRITERIA ENCOURAGE INMATE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND DISCIPLINE IS A REVERSAL OF THE PRESUMPTIVE REHABILITATIVE PRIORITIES OF PAROLE. THE CLAIM THAT PAROLE ALLOWS A CALMER AND MORE OBJECTIVE MEANS OF DETERMINING SENTENCING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACT. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT TO A LARGE EXTENT PAROLE SERVES TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND PREVENTS AN HONEST ASSESSMENT OF THE GOALS AND PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. (JAP)