A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WHICH IMPOSES A REPRESSIVE ORDER TO ACHEIVE ITS GOALS SUFFERS FROM THE SAME LACK OF MORAL AUTHORITY AS THE ANARCHY WHICH IT OPPOSES. TRUE MORAL ORDER IS BASED ON THE INTERNALIZATION OF CONTROL, THAT IS, OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS BELIEVE THAT THE LAW IS JUSTIFIED. THE LAW MUST FACILITATE THE INTERNALIZATION PROCESS BY BECOMING A MORAL FORCE FOR THE COMMUNITY. HUMAN DECENCY IS THE OBJECTIVE CRITERION OF SUCH MORALITY. THE CRIMINAL CODE SHOULD DEFINE THE MINIMUM CONDITIONS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY, IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE LIBERTY. MORAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE IMPLICATED IN BOTH DECIDING WHAT ACTIONS ARE CRIMINAL AND IN DECIDING THE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT. CASES INVOLVING THE INSANITY DEFENSE ARE CITED AS EXAMPLES OF THE COURTS' ATTEMPTS TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON IMPAIRMENT OF FREE CHOICE AND ITS RELATION TO BLAMELESSNESS. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS, WHICH MAY RENDER A DEFENDANT IMPERVIOUS TO TRAUMA, OUGHT TO PROTECT A DEFENDANT FROM THE SANCTIONS OF THE LAW. NEVERTHELESS, NO MAGIC FORMULA IS AVAILABLE FOR DETERMINING HOW THE BALANCE OF MORALITY AND SAFETY SHOULD BE REACHED IN INDIVIDUAL CASES. AN EMPHASIS ON MORAL CULPABILITY SHOULD NOT RAISE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SAFETY OF A SOCIETY WHICH EXCUSES DEFENDANTS FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM; RATHER, SOCIETY SHOULD DETERMINE IF IT CAN AFFORD NOT TO EXCUSE THE BLAMELESS DEFENDANT. (FOR RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE, REFER TO NCJ 56557.) (TWK).