THE CONCEPT OF PUNISHMENT IS GROUNDED IN EXISTENTIAL THEORIES OF SHARED FREEDOMS AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN A SYSTEM CHARACTERIZED BY SOCIAL SOLIDARITY. THEORIES AND RESEARCH INDICATE THAT PUNISHMENT PRESENTS A FUNCTIONAL AND NECESSARY APPROACH TO PRESERVING THAT SOCIAL SOLIDARITY AND FREEDOM. THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT INCLUDE RETRIBUTION THEORIES WHICH ARE CONCERNED MORE WITH THE FACT OF CRIME COMMISSION THAN WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF PUNISHMENT, DETERRENCE THEORIES WHICH SUGGEST THAT INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE PERCEIVED PROBABILITY OF PUNISHMENT, REHABILITATION THEORIES WHICH EMPHASIZE REMEDIATION OF THE OFFENDERS' PROBLEMS AND MEETING OF NEEDS, AND SOCIAL DEFENSE THEORIES WHICH PLACE HEAVY EMPHASIS ON THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY AND WHICH OFTEN INCORPORATE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN PREDICTING DANGEROUSNESS AND SPECIFYING CORRECTIONAL GOALS AND SENTENCES. ALL FOUR OF THESE THEORIES ARE USED IN CORRECTIONAL POLICIES. HOWEVER, THE LACK OF CLARITY CONCERNING THE APPROPRIATE OBJECTIVES AND THE UNCERTAIN EFFICACY OF SOME OF THESE OBJECTIVES POSE PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICTING NATURE OF SOME OF THESE OBJECTIVES. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE EMPHASIS ON REHABILITATIVE GOALS MIGHT BETTER BE REPLACED WITH AN EMPHASIS ON DETERRENCE AND THE EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF DETERRENCE CAPABILITIES. THE DEMONSTRATED EFFECTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION INDICATE THAT REHABILITATIVE GOALS CANNOT BE MET IN AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. FURTHER, THE DOCUMENTED EFFECTS OF IMPRISONMENT ON INMATES SUGGEST THAT PRISONS ARE NOT SERVING DETERRANCE FUNCTIONS. THIS MAY BE THE RESULT OF PRISON ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WHICH PERPETUATE A SUBCULTURAL CRIMINAL SOCIAL SOLIDARITY, OR THE LACK OF PROVISION OF POSITIVE EXTERNAL INFLUENCES WHICH CAN REPLACE THE OFFENDER'S NORMATIVE, ALTHOUGH DEVIANT, SUBCULTURAL VALUES. WHILE RESEARCH INTO LABELING EFFECTS IS INCONCLUSIVE, IF SUCH EFFECTS EXIST, THEN CONDITIONS IN WHICH LABELING IS OPERATIVE SHOULD BE AVOIDED OR DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF LABELING SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CORRECTIONAL AND DIVERSIONARY PROGRAMMING. DETERRENCE RESEARCH INDICATES THAT CERTAINTY AS WELL AS SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENT IS IMPORTANT IN DETERRENCE AND THAT DETERRENCE AND REHABILITATION GOALS ARE COMPATIBLE. THIS SUGGESTS THAT REHABILITATIVE COMMUNITY-BASED AND TREATMENT-ORIENTED CORRECTIONS MIGHT BE MOST EFFECTIVE IN CONTROLLING CRIME. SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT WILL REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF OFFENDER-TREATMENT TYPOLOGIES. FINALLY, LARGE SCALE PREVENTION PROGRAMS WOULD BENEFIT BY CONSIDERATION OF BOTH SITUATIONAL AND SUBJECT FEATURES IN DECISIONS TO COMMIT CRIME. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (JAP)