The major problem in Connecticut's correctional system is overcrowding, a state not related to increased crime so much as the widespread belief that locking up more people for longer periods will reduce crime. This practice is dubious on empirical grounds, and corrections officials should also question the assumption that it is their job to reduce the crime rate. In addition, it is unjust to impose extra suffering on the individual offender in an attempt to address problems of crime in the streets, the exaggerated public fear of crime, and political pressures to reduce crime. Should the Department content itself with attempting to provide safe and secure custody or should it also devote itself to rehabilitation? First, many inmates' lives have no former condition of health or integrity that can be restored. Second, rehabilitation programs have not demonstrated any significant measurable success. Other critics claim that rehabilitation cannot affect social and economic causes of crime and that rehabilitation and imprisonment are incompatible. In any event, the message received by prison inmates today is that they do not matter and cannot be trusted -- a communication that will defeat most treatment efforts. Selective incapacitation based on predictors of dangerousness again subjects offenders to additional suffering based on features in their lives which are not crimes and may be beyond their control. Overall, the Corrections Department's position on these issues must be based on a consistent conception of its purpose rather than administrative convenience or economic cost. The paper includes three footnotes. or economic cost. The paper includes three footnotes.