THE THEORY OF REHABILITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED ON THE PROMISE THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF CRIME. IF IT IS TO BE DISCARDED, WE MUST PRODUCE A MORAL THEORY TO TAKE ITS PLACE. ELIMINATION OF THE PENAL SYSTEM IN FAVOR OF COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS WILL NOT SUFFICE; THESE PROGRAMS PROVIDE AFTER-THE-FACT TREATMENTS THAT NEVER PREVENT AND SELDOM CURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. HOWEVER, IMPRISONMENT CAN BETTER SERVE THE PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY USE OF SENTENCING DISCRETION. BUT KEEPING DISCRETION IN THE HANDS OF JUDGES IS ACCEPTABLE ONLY IF JUDGES ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THEIR DECISIONS AND MAKE THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC. MANDATORY AND UNIFORM SENTENCING WILL NOT REDUCE CRIME. THE STREET OFFENDER CERTAINLY DOES NOT WEIGH THE RISKS OF PUNISHMENT BEFORE COMMITTING A FELONIOUS ACT. CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN ALSO TO THE SOCIAL INJUSTICES THAT BREED CRIME; POVERTY AND THE DEPRIVATION AND DISCRIMINATION THAT SO OFTEN ACCOMPANY POVERTY CREATE THE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE STREET AND URBAN CRIME LIKELY TO OCCUR. THE BASIC ISSUE IN THE DEBATE OVER ALTERNATIVE RESPONSES TO THE PROBLEM OF CRIME IS THE QUESTION OF THE GOAL TO BE PURSUED: REPRESSIVE ORDER OR MORAL ORDER. THE LATTER IS THE HARDER GOAL TO PURSUE AND IT IS THE GOAL THAT MUST BE PURSUED. IT IS EASY TO CONCEDE THE INEVITABILITY OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE AND FIND THE SERENITY TO ACCEPT IT. THE FAR HARDER TASK IS TO FEEL ITS INTOLERABILITY AND SEEK THE STRENGTH TO CHANGE IT. (DJM)