Assuming that the net advantage of committing income-producing crimes increases as the number of persons involved in such illegal markets dwindles, then rehabilitation, which presumably reduces the number of persons competing for money gained illegally, will serve to attract potential offenders who repeat crimes without being caught and subjected to rehabilitation, and it can be concluded that even if rehabilitation programs were largely effective, crime rates in most categories, particularly income-producing types, would not be reduced. The incentive for rehabilitation must therefore be a humane rather than a utilitarian incentive, i.e., to improve the quality of life of the offender than to reduce the crime rate. The cost is low enough now to make crime pay for a rising number of persons because of legal practices justified by the hope of rehabilitation and the mistaken idea that rehabilitation can reduce the crime rate. Parole and indeterminate sentences must be abolished along with judicial sentencing discretion and the numerous other programs meant to reduce the crime rate by rehabilitation. Punishment must become predictable, and a higher apprehension and conviction rate is needed. This is possible if resources and practices focus on these ends. Thirty-six footnotes are provided.