CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRACTITONERS HAVE JUSTIFIED DIVERSION ON A VARIETY OF GROUNDS, INCLUDNG THE FOLLOWING: (1) IT IS SAID TO DECREASE THE WORKLOADS OF JUSTICE SYSTEM OFFICIALS; (2) IT AVOIDS STIGMATIZING DEFENDANTS; (3) IT LESSENS THE DISRUPTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S LIFE; AND (4) IT PROVIDES A REHABILITATIVE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE INEFECTIVE PRISON EXPERIENCE. HOWEVER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS LITTLE CONCLUSIVE SUPPORT FOR THESE PROGRAMS, DIVERSION IS USED FOR MOST CHARGES LESS SERIOUS THAN HOMICIDE. NEW FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS WHICH ARE BEING USED FOR DIVERSIONARY PURPOSES ARE BECOMING MORE EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE AND MORE CROWDED AS THE AMOUNT OF DIVERTED CASES INCREASES, FACTORS WHICH UNDERCUT THE CONCEPT'S POSITIVE FOUNDATIONS (E.G., LESS DISRUPTION). FURTHER, THE RESULTS OF SEVERAL PILOT STUDIES OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES SHOW THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS IN FAVOR OF SOME SORT OF PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME. IN CASES WHERE THE CRIME IS THOUGHT TO BE SERIOUS, THE PUNISHMENT IS SEEN AS NOT SEVERE ENOUGH. THE USE OF DIVERSION SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE PERCEPTIONS OF VICTIMS, WITNESSES, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC; OTHERWISE, DIVERSION PROGRAMS MAY BE RESISTED IN THE FUTURE. CITIZEN RESISTANCE COULD BE REDUCED IF VICTIM COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AND VICTIM ADVOCACY UNITS ARE ESTABLISHED. DESPITE CITIZEN ATTITUDES, DIVERSION WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED BECAUSE OF THE OVERCROWDED CONDITIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF LABELING THEORY. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (BAC)