SHOCK PAROLE IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT A SHORT PERIOD OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION WILL SHOCK OFFENDERS INTO REHABILITATING THEMSELVES. THE REPORT DISCLOSES THAT SHOCK PROBATION AND SHOCK PAROLE ARE INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO REDUCING INCARCERATION AND SHORTENING THE LENGTH OF IMPRISONMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THESE APPROACHES HAVE THE MERITS OF REDUCING COSTS, PROVIDING A MUCH BROADER RANGE OF SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES, INCREASING THE RELEASE OPTIONS, FORCING GREATER COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIONS, EASING THE STRESSES AND STRAINS ON INMATES WHO CAN SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EARLY RELEASE, AND HELPING MAINTAIN FAMILY AND COMMUNITY TIES. THE DISADVANTAGES OF SHOCK PAROLE AND PROBATION INCLUDE: THE TENDENCY OF THE JUDICIARY TO IMPOSE IMPRISONMENT RATHER THAN PROBATION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SHOCK PROBATION AND PAROLE ARE NOW AVAILABLE, GREATER DISCRETIONARY POWER FOR JUDGES AND PAROLE BOARDS, POLICE, PROSECUTOR, JUDICIAL AND PUBLIC RESENTMENT AND HOSTILITY AT WHAT APPEARS TO BE GREATER LENIENCY FOR CRIMINALS, A GREATER WORK LOAD FOR JUDICIAL AND CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL, GREATER INSTITUTIONAL INSTABILITY BASED ON THE INCREASING DISCREPANCY IN RELATIVE TIME SERVED, AND INEVITABLY, THE FACT THAT MORE HEARINGS MEAN MORE DENIALS OF FREEDOM. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)