WHEN OHIO PASSED ITS SHORT-TERM INCARCERATION STATUTE IN 1965, THE PURPOSE WAS TO ALLOW JUDGES TO REVIEW THEIR SENTENCES AND, IF THEY FELT THE SENTENCE WAS TOO HARSH OR IF NEW INFORMATION HAD COME TO LIGHT, TO PLACE AN OFFENDER ON PROBATION. THE 'SHOCK' CONCEPT WAS COINED IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. THE USE OF SHOCK PROBATION HAS INCREASED IN OHIO FROM 85 CASES IN 1966 TO 1,478 IN 1976. OFFICIALS CONTEND THAT ONLY 10.3 PERCENT OF THOSE RELEASED UNDER THE SHORT-TERM INCARCERATION LAW HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO PRISON, BUT THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. SOME STATE CORRECTION OFFICIALS LAUD THE PROGRAM AS A WAY FOR THE COURTS TO IMPRESS OFFENDERS WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR ACTIONS WITHOUT RISKING THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF LONG-TERM INCARCERATION. PROPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM SEE IT AS A WAY FOR CORRECTIONS TO ACHIEVE TWO NORMALLY CONTRADICTORY GOALS: PUNISHMENT AND COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT. CRITICS OF THE PROGRAM SAY THAT JUDGES MISUSE THE STATUTE, GRANTING SHOCK PROBATION TO HARDENED REPEATERS RATHER THAN TO YOUNG FIRST OFFENDERS. SOME SAY THE SHOCK VALUE OF THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN DIMINISHED, BECAUSE MOST INMATES WHO APPLY FOR SHOCK PROBATION (INMATES MAY APPLY BETWEEN THEIR 30TH AND 60TH DAY IN PRISON) HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF WHETHER THEY WILL RECEIVE IT. STATISTICS FOR EVALUATING SHOCK PROBATION ARE INADEQUATE, DUE IN PART TO INADEQUATE RESEARCH FACILITIES AND TO DIFFICULTIES IN GATHERING DATA FROM ALL OF OHIO'S COURTS. OHIO JUDGES DIFFER IN THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EFFECT AND APPLICATIONS OF SHOCK PROBATION. MOST PROBATION OFFICERS AND DEFENSE LAWYERS ARE IN FAVOR OF THE CONCEPT. THE MOST SEVERE OBJECTIONS TO SHOCK PROBATION COME FROM SOME OF THE STATE'S PROSECUTORS, ONE OF WHOM NOTES THAT INMATES ARE NOW SHOCKED WHEN THEY DON'T GET SHOCK PROBATION, NOT WHEN THEY DO. SUMMARIES OF SHOCK PROBATION LAWS IN IDAHO, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, TEXAS, NORTH CAROLINA, AND MAINE, ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)