APART FROM THE LIFE SENTENCE, WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR MURDER, NO SPECIAL POWERS OR DISPOSALS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE COURTS WHEN DEALING WITH VIOLENT OFFENDERS. BOTH IMPRISONMENT AND THE SO-CALLED DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH TO CRIMINALITY AND SENTENCING HAVE HAD LITTLE REHABILITATIVE EFFECT. GENUINE REDUCTION IN CRIME IN THE SOCIETY WILL BE ACHIEVED NOT BY WHAT THE COURTS DO BUT RATHER BY RADICAL CHANGES IN SOCIAL HABITS, EDUCATION, AND SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL PLANNING. IN THE CASE OF SENTENCING ALL OFFENDERS, COURTS HAVE THE DUAL RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE VICTIMS OF THE PARTICULAR CRIME, AND TOWARD THE OFFENDERS, THERE CAN BE NO SINGLE OR UNIFORM POLICY OR APPROACH WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION IN CASES WHERE LENGTHY INCARCERATION IS NEEDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC. EVEN IN THE CASE OF YOUNG VIOLENT OFFENDERS, COURTS HAVE, IN GENERAL, VERY LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE WAYS IN WHICH THEIR DISPOSALS ARE CARRIED OUT. ON THE OTHER HAND, JUDGES CAN AND DO ADOPT CERTAIN PRACTICE SUCH AS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT COURTS SHOULD ALWAYS OBTAIN A SOCIAL ENQUIRY REPORT WHEN AN OFFENDER IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT CRIME OF VIOLENCE. NONETHELESS COURTS MUST STILL LOOK AT EACH CASES AS IT ARISES, PARTICULARLY IN THE SHERIFF COURT WHERE ONE IS DEALING WITH THE LESSER END OF THE SPECTRUM OF VIOLENCE. (MFE)