Today we are close to a return to a theory of criminal punishment which prevailed centuries ago. In the last 10 years retribution has been revived as a principal goal of punishment. It is argued herein that with minor exceptions, the concept of retaliation is synonymous with retribution. Retaliation appeared early in the law and remained until the 19th century when it was replaced as a major objective by rehabilitation. By the mid-1970's, however, the demise of the rehabilitative ideal was heralded by the vast majority of those who were researching and writing on the subject. As a result, collateral reforms enacted in many States and now proposed for a Federal criminal code include strict guidelines narrowing judicial sentencing discretion, abandonment of rehabilitation as a reason for imprisonment, abolition of parole, and appellate review of sentencing decisions. Serious objections to these measures have been raised, but opponents are in the minority. It is argued herein that none of the reformers claim that the proposed reforms will reduce crime. In addition, it has been noted that the public's fear of crime should be viewed as a resource, and that if the impetus for reform is diverted by enactment of the retribution proposals, then the public attention will be directed away from attacks upon the root causes of crime such as poverty and social injustices. National, State, and local bar associations are urged to examine the movement and assume a leadership role either in support or in opposition to the trend. These organizations cannot fulfill their role of community leadership by remaining silent. Appended material is included in the article. (Author abstract modified).