THREE PAPERS ON ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT IN NEW SOUTH WALES ARE REVIEWED. THE DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON THE CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS AND THEORIES IN THE PAPERS AND ON THEIR LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICYMAKING. THAT ALL THREE PAPERS REPRESENT VIEWPOINTS OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE CONTROL BUREAUCRACY OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS SAID TO INDICATE OF THE UNFORTUNATE TENDENCY FOR SOCIETY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS FROM WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK RATHER THAN FROM OUTSIDE. ONE AUTHOR'S VIEW--THAT--OFFENDERS WHO FAIL IN ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS SHOULD BE CANDIDATES FOR IMPRISONMENT--IS CRITICIZED; IT IS ARGUED THAT, WHERE THE FEAR OF IMPRISONMENT LIES BEHIND AN ALTERNATIVE, NO REAL ALTERNATIVE EXISTS. THE VIEW THAT ALTERNATIVES ARE MERELY MORE CONVENIENT MEANS OF OPERATING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ALSO CRITICIZED, AS IS THE NEED FOR A MAJOR REORIENTATION OF PERSPECTIVE TOWARD ABOLITION OF PRISONS AND INTRODUCTION OF ALTERNATIVES. A CONCEPTUAL JUMP IS CALLED FOR--FROM A NARROW VIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AS AN ADJUNCT TO PRISONS, TO A VIEW OF ALTERNATIVES AS A STEP TO BE TAKEN ONCE SOCIETY HAS LEFT BEHIND THE INEFFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARY CONSTRAINTS IN THE EXISTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. (LKM)