THE PROPONENTS OF MANDATORY SENTENCING ARE CRITICIZED FOR FAILING TO CONSIDER THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATIONS THAT UNDERLIE THE CRIMES THEY SEEK TO DETER, FOR FAILING TO DIRECT THEIR PUNITIVE STRATEGIES TO WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS AS WELL AS TO STREET CRIMINALS, FOR IGNORING THE COSTS INVOLVED IN STEPPED-UP ENFORCEMENT OF MANDATORY SENTENCES, AND FOR DISREGARDING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF OVERCROWDING PRISONS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, AT THE SAME TIME PRISONS AND REHABILITATION ARE UNDER FIRE, PRESSURE IS MOUNTING TO BUILD MORE PRISONS AND TO SENTENCE MORE OFFENDERS TO PRISON FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME. THE CRUX OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THOSE WHO URGE FIXED MANDATORY SENTENCES AND THOSE WHO ARGUE FOR INDIVIDUALIZATION OF TREATMENT IN THE COURTS AND IN PRISONS IS SAID TO BE THE FALSE CLAIM BY THE FORMER THAT REHABILITATION HAS BEEN TRIED AND PROVEN A FAILURE. PROPONENTS OF MANDATORY SENTENCES ARE URGED TO DIRECT THEIR EFFORTS TO ALLEVIATING THE CONDITIONS THAT UNDERLIE MOST CRIMES AND TO IMPROVING PRISON CONDITIONS AND PROGRAMS. IT IS NOTED THAT A PHILOSOPHY THAT TREATS ALL CRIMES ALIKE, AS THOUGH ALL CRIMINALS WERE ALIKE, IS DEHUMANIZING AND HAS GRAVE IS DEHUMANIZING AND HAS GRAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL OF SOCIETY.