Overall, the war on crime is not viewed as being won by delivering more and longer prison sentences through mandatory sentencing. The incapacitating effect of prison is advocated for serious offenders, but longer prison sentences are viewed as being costly and ineffective in significantly reducing crime. Swift apprehension and the certain application of punishment, not necessarily extreme punishment, are generally viewed as the crucial factors in creating a climate likely to deter crime. The laws necessary for deterrence are seen to be in place, but the components of the criminal justice system must be more effective in administering them if they are to have the intended deterrent and rehabilitative impact. The traditional symbols of a 'get tough' policy -- mandatory sentences, sentencing guidelines, longer prison sentences, and the reduction or elimination of the use of probation and parole -- are generally rejected as having long-term undesirable consequences, notably prison overcrowding and exorbitant costs. Community crime prevention is viewed as a promising approach to crime reduction, and the juvenile justice and family court system are viewed as potentially helpful institutions that require modifications to address apparent failures. One paper notes that there has been an over-reaction to juvenile crime based upon deceptive crime figures derived from the group nature of most juvenile crime; whereas, adult crime tends to be committed by lone offenders. The appendixes report on the prevalent answers given by conference participants to controversial questions in the areas of adult corrections and juvenile justice.