Much of the controversy followed Martinson's harsh criticisms of rehabilitation as having no positive influence on deterrence of recidivism. This article describes the flaws in his arguments and those of other anti-rehabilitationists. In addition, it analyzes his proposed alternative, 'restraint in the community,' which advocates abolition of indeterminate sentencing and parole boards. He recommends three categories of offenders. Suspendees would be given a fixed but suspended sentence that would automatically double with a repeat offense and the offender then would be reclassified. Restrainees would be placed under secret surveillance in the community for a specified time and would be institutionalized for a new offense. Isolates, a small group, would require isolation from the public. This proposal is examined in detail, as are arguments of the pro-rehabilitation group. Finally, there is a discussion of the correctional alternative, of reintegration, which utilizes an internalization strategy of influence to combat recidivism. Like Martinsons's proposal, this alternative is also a community-based system with an advocate-broker service. However, where Martinson's concept aims for offender compliance through restraint, reintegration would effect client's internalized behavior changes and public attitudes more receptive to offenders in their midst. References (52 items) provided.