IT IS ARGUED THAT CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICYMAKERS HAVE FAILED TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THE FINDING OF MANY STUDIES THAT VIOLENT OR OTHERWISE DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR CANNOT BE PREDICTED. IN THESE SAME STUDIES, OVERPREDICTION HAS BEEN THE PATTERN; THUS, THE UNJUST INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF A MULTITUDE OF PERSONS WHO WOULD NOT ACT OUT DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR IS THE RESULT OF ESTABLISHED PATTERNS OF DECISIONMAKING BASED ON PRESUMED PREDICTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS. IT IS SPECULATED THAT THE CONTINUED USE OF THESE PROCEDURES IN THE LIGHT OF STUDIES SHOWING THEIR INVALIDITY IS A POLITICAL DECISION THAT GIVES ESTABLISHED AUTHORITIES COMPREHENSIVE SOCIAL CONTROL OVER CERTAIN PERSONS TOWARD WHOM SOCIETY OR CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL HAVE A SUBJECTIVELY PUNITIVE STANCE. THIS EXISTING PROCEDURAL STRUCTURE FOR ARBITRARY SOCIAL CONTROL IS BELIEVED TO HAVE NO PLACE IN A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT CLAIMS TO OPERATE UNDER REASONABLY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF JUSTICE. IT IS URGED THAT A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF EXISTING AUSTRALIAN LAW AND PRACTICE BE UNDERTAKEN WITH A VIEW TO BRINGING POLICY IN LINE WITH THE LIMITATIONS EVIDENCED IN BEHAVIORAL PREDICTION PROCEDURES. (RCB)