ALTHOUGH SOCIOLOGISTS AND SOCIAL ADMINISTRATORS DIFFER IN THEIR APPROACHES TO STUDYING CRIMINAL JUSTICE, BOTH FOCUS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON HOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OPERATES RATHER THAN ON THE SYSTEM ITSELF. BOTH HAVE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SYSTEM'S AIMS ARE REINTERPRETED OR DISTORTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE IT; YET NEITHER HAS VIEWED THOSE AIMS AS PROBLEMATIC RATHER THAN AS SOMETHING TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED, NOR HAS AN EFFORT BEEN MADE TO TREAT SYSTEM RULES AS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN EXPLAINING SYSTEM PRACTICES, OR TO ANALYZE AND EXPLAIN THE SYSTEM'S ASSUMPTIONS, RHETORIC, AND CONCEPTS OF NECESSITY, FAIRNESS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES. THE NET RESULT HAS BEEN THAT RESEARCH INTO HOW CRIMINAL LAW WORKS HAS OVERLOOKED THE MOST OBVIOUS ELEMENT: THE LAW ITSELF. THIS SHORTCOMING HAS TO DO WITH A SERIES OF INTERLOCKING, QUESTIONABLE DICHOTOMIES THAT HAVE CHARACTERIZED CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH -- DICHOTOMIES BETWEEN THE SUBSTANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW, BETWEEN MACROLEVEL AND MICROLEVEL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES, BETWEEN THE NEW CRIMINOLOGY AND THE OLD, AND BETWEEN ABSTRACT THEORIZING AND EMPIRICISM. ONCE USEFUL ANALYTICAL DEVICES, THESE DICHOTOMIES NOW SERVE TO LIMIT RESEARCH. BEYOND BRINGING LAW IN AS AN EXPLANATORY FACTOR IN STUDYING THE OPERATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE ASSUMPTIONS AND PURPOSES UNDERLYING CRIMINAL JUSTICE ITSELF IN TERMS OF SOCIAL, HISTORICAL, AND POLITICAL BASES, AND IN RELATION TO CLASS, POWER, INTERESTS AND IDEOLOGIES. QUESTIONS AND CONCEPTS THAT HAVE BEEN RESERVED FOR ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC LAWS MUST BE APPLIED TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM. SUCH INVESTIGATION MUST BE CONDUCTED IN AN EMPIRICAL MANNER, COMBINING THE QUESTIONS OF MACROSOCIOLOGY WITH THE METHODS OF MICROSOCIOLOGY, AND THE CRITICAL INSIGHTS OF THE NEW CRIMINOLOGY WITH THE EMPIRICAL WORK OF THE OLD. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)