The white paper on young offenders consciously avoids presenting a philosophical framework within which to justify a system of custodial measures for juveniles. The paper advocates greater use of noncustodial measures while simultaneously proposing measures apparently designed to ensure an increase in the use of custodial sentences. For the custodial regimes, the broad intentions seem to be to maintain a primarily punitive, deterrent approach to both the short-term and the long-term offenders, while retaining a general treatment strategy for those serving 4 through 18 months. Neither approach is likely to be successful if the objective is to reduce the rate of reconviction. One major handicap in developing more progressive custodial regimes has been the confusion about the reasons for giving the sentence; namely, the nature of the offense and the objectives of the custodial program. Officially, the punishment in a custodial sentence is viewed as residing solely in the deprivation of liberty. If this were genuinely the case, it should follow that, within the inevitable constraints necessary in any ordered community, individuals would have wide discretion over their own lifestyles. This should be the policy direction for custodial regimes. Rigid treatment programs on one hand and punitive custodial environments on the other have not worked. The provision of voluntary programs and activities within a custodial setting may be the best approach. Six references are listed. (Author abstract modified)