The phenomenal increase in crime in the last decade is sufficient proof that the existing approach of the criminal justice system is failing. The belief that rehabilitation programs can make a significant impact on offender behavior has not been borne out by a number of recent comprehensive studies. By fixing on rehabilitation as the primary goal of sentencing, government has ignored the deterrent effect of fixed certain punishment for a crime according to its severity. In addition, incapacitation has also been overlooked as an obviously effective means for protecting the public from those who habitually commit serious crimes. A working model for new laws to govern penal policy should have the following characteristics: (1) the sentence imposed should be fixed in advance so that a person contemplating the commission of a crime will know the certain consequences if convicted; (2) the sentence imposed should depend on the nature of the crime rather than on the characteristics of the offender; (3) the criminal should know in advance that if convicted, the fixed punishment will be imposed; and (4) rehabilitation programs should be strictly voluntary. California has undertaken a penal approach that follows this working model with the passage of the Uniform Determinate Sentence Act of 1976. The Criminal Justice Committee of California's legislative Assembly continues, however, to fight such an approach, in spite of the obvious policy preferences of the California Senate and the public.