Rising crime rates and prison unrest in the 1970's created profound disillusionment with rehabilitation at both ends of the political spectrum. A brief review of these events focuses on the policy which emerged as the newest 'ideal' solution -- determinate sentencing, or the 'justice model.' An overview of the classical and positivist theories of criminal justice and their impact on liberal, conservative, and radical ideologies provides background for the continuing debate over punishment versus rehabilitation. A history of prison reform movements in the United States covers colonial times through the early- 20th-century progressives whose innovations created indeterminate sentencing, probation and parole systems, juvenile courts, and other basic features of the contemporary criminal justice system. The authors then examine attacks against the rehabilitation ideal, particularly liberals' criticisms of ineffective correctional programs, enforced treatment, and discrimination in indeterminate sentences. The discussion of problems that could emerge if the justice-determinate sentencing model becomes the sole guide to correctional policy concludes that this approach will not improve the administration of justice and the quality of inmates' lives or decrease crime rates. It aims to control crime through dispensing harsher sentences and eliminating judicial discretion. This will wipe out many checks and balances in the criminal justice system, allow the prosecutor even greater powers, and create a rigid sentencing policy that many will try to evade in the interests of economy, humanitarianism, and practicality. An evaluation of determinate sentencing systems enacted in several States addresses their adherence to the liberals' justice model, the political processes involved in passing such laws, and the impact of new legislation on sentencing and prison populations. Finally, the book suggests why liberals should return to the rehabilitation ideal. Footnotes and indexes are included.