THE DISCUSSION IS IN RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE BY D.E.J. MACNAMARA (NCJ-41008), IN WHICH THE PAROLE SYSTEM WAS CRITICIZED FOR FAILING IN ITS REHABILITATIVE CONCEPT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE CRITICISM WAS SHORT SIGHTED AND ILL DEFINED AND THAT SUCH CONCEPTS AS REHABILITATION REINTEGRATION, AND REFORMATION ARE CREATED BY SOCIAL SCIENCE LEXICOGRAPHERS AND HAVE NO DEMONSTRABLE UTILITY IN EVALUATING PAROLE SUPERVISION. PAROLE SUCCESS IS SAID TO BE BASED ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONCEPT: THE PAROLE OFFICER'S IMPOSITION OF PREVIOUSLY ABSENT ELEMENTS OF RESTRAINT, SUPERVISION, GUIDANCE, AND ORDER ON THE OFFENDER'S LIFESTYLE. CRITICS OF PAROLE FIND FAULT WITH PAROLE OFFICER'S IMPOSITION OF ORDER AND RESTRAINT ON THE ACTIVITY OF PAROLEES AND WITH THE USE OF SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PAROLE CONDITIONS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IT IS NAIVE TO THINK THAT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS CAN BE CHANGED WITHOUT THESE TOOLS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE FEDERAL PAROLE SYSTEM, WHICH REQUIRES LITTLE 'STREET WORK,' IS INEFFECTIVE AND VULNERABLE, WHEREAS THE NEW YORK SYSTEM, WHICH EMPHASIZES SURVEILLANCE AND POLICE WORK, LEADS THE COUNTRY IN EFFICIENCY OF OPERATION. THE MACNAMARA ARTICLE'S CLAIM THAT PAROLE SUPERVISION AND SERVICES IN NEW YORK ARE INADEQUATE IS SAID TO BE BASED ON QUESTIONABLE DOCUMENTATION. THE ARTICLE'S SUGGESTION THAT NEW YORK PAROLE OFFICIALS CANNOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DANGEROUS AND NONDANGEROUS OFFENDERS IS COUNTERED WITH EVIDENCE FROM EMPIRICAL STUDIES SUGGESTING OTHERWISE. THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PAROLE SUPERVISION IN NEW YORK IS ALSO NOTED. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)