THE COURTS HAVE USED THE 'NOBLE LIE' OF REHABILITATION TO INCREASE JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER PRISON CONDITIONS. PROPERLY DEFINING THE LEGITIMATE ROLE OF REHABILITATION IN PRISONS WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE NOBLE LIE AND WOULD LESSEN THE DANGER OF EXPANDING THE PUNITIVE POWER OF THE STATE UNDER THE GUISE OF CURATIVE EFFORTS. DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUNISHMENT FOR REHABILITATION ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE FACILITATION OF REHABILITATIVE EFFORTS DURING PUNISHMENT OTHERWISE JUSTIFIED ON THE OTHER, WOULD NOT THREATEN THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS. PENAL REFORM INVOLVES MORE THAN SIMPLY REMOVING THE COERCIVE ELEMENT FROM TREATMENT PROGRAMS IN PRISON. REHABILITATION AS A PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT IS REJECTED, NOT BECAUSE IT CORRUPTS PRISON PROGRAMS OR RELIES ON EMPIRICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FALLACIES, BUT RATHER, BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MISUSE OF POWER AND BECAUSE OF FUNDAMENTAL VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO FREEDOM. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT MODEL. THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE RELIANCE ON ITS COERCIVE APPLICATION OUTSIDE THE PROPER CONSTRAINTS OF A DUE RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. FOR THE ARTICLE FROM WHICH THIS DISCUSSION IS DRAWN, SEE NCJ-46573. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)