AFTER OFFERING A STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW OF CRIMINOLOGICAL AND PENOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE FIELD OF CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT, THIS ARTICLE TAKES ANOTHER LOOK AT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT. IT DETERMINES THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REHABILITATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANT WHEN MEASURED AGAINST THE INCIDENT OF RECIDIVISM. REHABILITATIVE APPROACHES ARE NOT THE ONLY METHODS OF PROCESSING OFFENDERS; BUT ARE NOT A UNIVERSAL PANACEA. MOREOVER, SUCH APPROACHES, ALTHOUGH LOUDLY ARTICULATED, ARE NOT CARRIED THROUGH WITH ANY CONSISTENCY. CLAIMS FOR FAIRNESS TO THE VICTIM AND SOCIETY FORCE RECOGNITION OF PUNISHMENT MODALITIES, LIKE RETRIBUTION, DETERRENCE, AND INCAPACITATION. THE VAGUENESS SURROUNDING ANY DISCUSSION OF SOCIETY'S AND VICTIMS' CLAIMS FOR FAIRNESS IN PUNISHING THE CRIMINAL HAVE HAMPERED POLICY DISCUSSION AND IMPLEMENTATION. THUS, A MEASUREMENT OF PERCEIVED CRIME SERIOUSNESS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, USING COMMUNITY JUDMENTS AND THE OBSERVABLE AMOUNT OF INJURY, THEFT, AND DAMAGE IN EACH CRIMINAL TO PROVIDE AN EMPIRICAL DIMENSION TO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SOCIETAL COMPONENT IN PUNISHING CRIMINALS. UNDER THIS MEASUREMENT, OFFENDERS MAY BE PUNISHED IN RELATION TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR CRIME RATHER THAN ON THE BASIS OF VAGUE AND INCONSISTENT NOTIONS ABOUT FAIRNESS OR THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A GIVEN PUNISHMENT. ALTHOUGH IT PROVIDES A CLEAR-CUT BASIS FOR POLICY ABOUT PUNISHMENT, THE SERIOUSNESS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT RESOLVE THE MORE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF WHETHER A PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE RETRIBUTIVE, DETERRENT, INCAPACITATIVE, REHABILITATIVE, OR A MIXTURE OF THESE APPROACHES. IT DOES, HOWEVER, REPRESENT AN EFFORT TO INCORPORATE COMMUNITY VIEWS OF THE GRAVITY OF THE EVENT INTO THE MEASUREMENT OF CRIME AND PRESENTS POSSIBLE GUIDELINES FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE OFFENDER. A LIST OF 13 REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LGR)