The revised probation system would have public safety as its goal and would also acknowledge victims as probation clients. It would rest on the principles that a sentence is a measured punishment proportionate to the harm inflicted by the offender and that criminal justice agencies must make justice and fairness overriding goals. When treatment becomes the focus, probation fails to serve the goal of justice. Discretion should be narrowed, controlled, and made reviewable, and probation as a sentence must be made explicit. The presentence investigation should be treated as a legal document and be discoverable by the defendant. Further, judges should have flexibility in determining the particular conditions of the probation order. Treatment should be voluntary. The standard of proof for revocation of probation should be at least as high as for the conviction that produced the probation sentence. Traditional probation practices and premises are incompatible with this model. The National Institute of Corrections should become the national advocate for probation for the next decade. A 10-year developmental plan should be adopted, under combined support from the Federal Government, professional groups, and a private foundation. This effort would produce a training program for probation leadership, a strong professional membership group for probation officers, a probation journal, a clearinghouse for probation information, and several other results by the early 1990's. Notes and 21 references are listed.