FOR SOME 35 YEARS THE MAJOR EMPHASIS OF CORRECTIONAL RESEARCH HAS BEEN ON REHABILITATION. MORE RECENTLY, STUDIES ON DETERRENCE HAVE BEGUN TO EMERGE. MANY STUDIES OF REHABILITATION HAVE REVEALED DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS, SUPPORTING THE GENERAL CONTENTION THAT REHABILITATION DOES WORK UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS OR WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF OFFENDERS. HOWEVER, REHABILITATION APPEARS NOT TO REDUCE THE CRIME RATE APPRECIABLY. SOME LOOK TO DETERRENCE AS THE NEW PANACEA FOR PROTECTING THE PUBLIC. BUT DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND IN STUDIES OF DETERRENCE AND THE EFFECTS OF CERTAINTY AND SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENT. NO UNIVERSALITY OF CAUSE AND EFFECT HAS BEEN FOUND FOR DETERRENCE. RESEARCHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD NEITHER PREMATURELY REJECT REHABILITATION NOR UNCRITICALLY ACCEPT DETERRENCE. THE DIFFERENTIAL OUTCOMES GENERATED FROM RESEARCH ON BOTH REHABILITATION AND DETERRENCE DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SOCIAL PHENOMENA UNDER STUDY. RESEARCH ON DETERRENCE AND REHABILITATION SHOULD PROCEED IN AN INTEGRATED, RATHER THAN A COMPETITIVE, MANNER. LEGAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS NOTWITHSTANDING, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHOM TO PUNISH, WHOM TO REHABILITATE AND WHOM TO LEAVE ALONE. (LKM)