The four goals are rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. State legislators often face the responsibility for choosing the desired goal or mix of goals from among these competing goals when correctional reform is contemplated. A survey of all lawmakers in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota aimed to determine legislators' perceptions of correctional goals. The State legislators agreed at least partially with the tenets of each of the four goals. Although most agreed that the seriousness of the crime should be the most important consideration in sentencing, over half also agreed that the social environment causes crime. Legislators believing in the propriety of punishment tended to support the notions that harsh sentences deter crime and that the first priority of corrections is to get the offender off the street. However, legislators believing that the correctional system is too harsh tended to believe that harsh sentences do not deter crime and that the social environment causes crime. The legislators clearly distinguished between only two sets of correctional goals and did not perceive a distinction among retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence. Existing sentencing policies therefore try to fulfill contradictory theories and can present ambiguous policy guidance to implementers. In addition, such policies will be doomed to failure if judged against the achievement of any one goal or against any coherent mix of correctional goals. Data tables and reference notes are provided.