This article contends that such claims are mistaken: that, in fact, the criteria for prediction and for desert differ significantly in the degree of emphasis that may be placed on the prior criminal history, and in the type of information about that history which may appropriately be used. The article also criticizes recent arguments that desert furnishes only broad outer limits on punishments, within which predictive determinations may fairly be used. It is concluded that the tension between selective incapacitation and desert cannot be ignored, and that the use of selective incapacitation strategies in sentencing entails sacrifices of equity for offenders. (Author abstract)