THE RISING CRIME RATES, FINDINGS ON THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF DETERRENCE AND REHABILITATION, AND THE RISE OF A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN CORRECTIONS ARE EXAMINED AS THE PRINCIPAL BASES FOR THE CURRENT EMPHASIS ON DETERRENCE AND INCAPACITATION AS CORRECTIONS GOALS, WHILE DEEMPHASIZING THE PREVIOUSLY CENTRAL FOCUS ON REHABILITATION. THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE FINDINGS THAT 'NOTHING REHABILITATES' AND 'DETERRENCE WORKS' IS QUESTIONED. IT IS BELIEVED THAT A MORE CAREFUL READING OF EXISTING EVIDENCE CAN ONLY REVEAL THAT NO DECISIVE CONCLUSION ON THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE TWO PHILOSOPHIES OF CORRECTION CAN BE DRAWN. MUCH OF THE FAILURE OF REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS TO DATE IS BELIEVED TO STEM FROM PROGRAMS LIMITED IN DURATION AND NOT TAILORED TO SPECIFIC OFFENDER NEEDS, MOTIVATIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICS. ASSESSMENTS OF EVALUATIONS OF REHABILITATION PROGRAMS ARE ALSO CITED AS BEING UNREALISTIC IN EXPECTING DRAMATIC CHANGES IN OFFENDER LIFESTYLES AS A RESULT OF SPECIFIC PROGRAMS. CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES RELATED TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCING AND VARIOUS, POSSIBLY INHUMANE AND/OR INEFFECTIVE TREATMENTS ARE TOUCHED UPON. IT IS NOTED THAT THE GREAT INCREASE IN ECONOMIC CRIME POINTS TO THE NEED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO OFFENDERS, RATHER THAN AIM AT CHANGING THEIR PERSONALITIES. THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN CORRECTIONS IS ADVOCATED AS POINTING OUT THE NEED FOR CURBS ON CERTAIN OF REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS; ALTHOUGH IT IS ARGUED THAT THE NEED FOR SUCH RESTRAINTS DOES NOT INVALIDATE REHABILITATION PER SE. ADHERENCE TO A STRICT DETERRENCE PHILOSOPHY IS CONSIDERED UNWISE, BECAUSE OF ITS CONSEQUENT FINANCIAL COST AND UNDERMINING OF AN ETHIC THAT AFFIRMS THE WORTH OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. IT IS URGED THAT REHABILITATION BE VIEWED AS ONE OF SEVERAL POTENTIALLY USEFUL APPROACHES IN DEALING WITH CRIME AND THE OFFENDER. (RCB)