PAROLE AND INDETERMINATE SENTENCES EMERGED DURING THE 19TH CENTURY. BOTH WERE DESIGNED TO MITIGATE LONG HARSH SENTENCES AND ALLOW DISCRETION IN SENTENCING AND RELEASE DECISIONS. WHILE, ORIGINALLY, THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH PAROLE COULD BE GRANTED WAS NARROWLY PRESCRIBED, IT BECAME WIDER UNTIL SENTENCES OF 1 YEAR TO LIFE BECAME INCREASINGLY COMMON. THIS HAS HAD SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE; IT REMOVED DECISIONS WHICH HAD BEEN JUDICIAL PREROGATIVES FROM THE COURTROOM AND IT PLACES MANY OFFENDERS UNDER CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. STUDIES HAVE INDICATED THAT PAROLE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A CRITICAL FACTOR IN SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THE RELEASED OFFENDER IN THE COMMUNITY. COMPARED TO UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, PAROLE DOES NOT ENHANCE SOCIAL REINTEGRATION, NOR IS IT COST EFFECTIVE. FURTHER, PAROLE FAILS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE COMMUNITY AND DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS FOR THE EQUAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. REHABILITATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO WORK FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF OFFENDERS, AND MUCH OF WHAT PASSES FOR REHABILITATION MAY ACTUALLY BE GAME-PLAYING ON THE PART OF OFFENDERS WHO SEEK TO GAIN EARLY RELEASE BY DEMONSTRATING THEIR SO-CALLED REHABILITATION. IF FLAT SENTENCES WERE INTRODUCED WITHOUT PAROLE BOARD MECHANISMS FOR RELEASE, PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS ONLY BY THOSE WHO REALLY DESIRE THEM WILL IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF SUCH PROGRAMS AND STAFF TIME CAN BE FOCUSED ON THOSE WHO ARE GENUINELY MOTIVATED. PROPONENTS OF FIXED SENTENCES MAY BE INCLINED TO PLACE BLAME FOR THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM ON THE PAROLE BOARD. HOWEVER, THE PROBLEMS LIE NOT WITH CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL BUT WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. REHABILITATIVE CHANGE CAN NOT BE COERCED. FLAT SENTENCES CAN HELP REMOVE SOME OF THE INEQUITIES AND INEFFICIENCIES WITHIN THE SYSTEM AND PERMIT JUST AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS, WORK AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES, AND THE CHANCE TO DISCHARGE THE SENTENCE WITH DIGNITY.