DURING MOST OF THE 20TH CENTURY, THE MAJOR IDEOLOGY IN CRIME CONTROL HAS BEEN REHABILITATION, WITH POLICIES FOLLOWING A MEDICAL MODEL. FROM THIS VIEW, PERSONS WHO COMMIT CRIME ARE REGARDED AS TEMPORARILY ILL. IF THEY ARE PLACED IN APPROPRIATE TREATMENT PROGRAM, ILLNESS MAY BE CURED, AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONTINUED UNTIL REHABILITATION IS EVIDENT. THE MEDICAL MODEL HAS COME UNDER ATTACK AS A RESULT OF EVALUATION STUDIES COMPARING ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMS. CONFLICT HAS ENSUED AMONG PERSONS WITH REHABILITATIVE IDEOLOGIES, SUPPORTERS OF PUNITIVE MEASURES, PROPONENTS OF INCAPACITATION STRATEGIES, ADVOCATES OF GENERAL DETERRENCE (I. E., PUNISHMENT OF SOME INDIVIDUALS TO SET AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS). THE UNDERLYING CONCEPT OF GENERAL DETERRENCE IS THAT OF A RATIONAL PERSON, ONE WHO MEASURES EXPECTED RISKS AND BENEFITS OF A CRIME AND THEN CAREFULLY CHOOSES THE OPTION WITH GREATER UTILITY. PRINCIPAL SUPPORT FOR THE GENERAL DETERRENCE STRATEGY TENDS TO COME FROM ECONOMISTS. SUPPORTERS OF THE INCAPACITATION STRATEGY ARGUE THAT A CONVICTED CRIMINAL WHO IS IMPRISONED CANNOT REPRESENT A THREAT TO SOCIETY DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS INCARCERATION. THIS POLICY RELIES ON AN IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION THAT THE FUTURE CRIMINALITY OF INDIVIDUALS CAN BE PREDICTED AND IS SUFFICIENTLY HIGH TO WARRANT IMPRISONMENT. OPPONENTS OF THE INCAPACITATION STRATEGY ARGUE THAT IT IS IMPROPER AND PROBABLY UNCONSITUTIONAL TO USE ANY PREDICTION OF A PERSON'S FUTURE CRIMINALITY IN DECIDING HOW TO PUNISH THAT PERSON FOR A CURRENT OFFENSE. IN ANALYZING EACH TREATMENT APPROACH, IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THE VALIDITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC POSITIONS BEING BROUGHT INTO THE DEBATE. NOW THAT ISSUES HAVE BECOME MORE TECHNICAL AND COMPLEX, THESE POLICY ISSUES NEED CLEARER ILLUMINATION SO THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS CAN INTERPRET THE TECHNICAL CONTENT IN THE DEBATE. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)