AFTER WORLD WAR II, THE PRISON POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES DROPPED, REVERSING AN UPWARD TREND. THE HORRORS OF IMPRISONMENT DURING THE WAR AFFECTED THE WAYS IN WHICH SOCIETY VIEWED INCARCERATION. THIS EFFECT, HOWEVER, WORE OFF, AND THE PRISON POPULATION INCREASED UNTIL THE FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION REACHED A NEW HIGH IN 1961, THEN DECLINED ONCE AGAIN. BOTH POPULATION DROPS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS STIMULATED BY RECENT WARS. THE BILL IS EXAMINED IN TERMS OF ITS IMPACT ON THE FOLLOWING: (1) PRISON SENTENCES, (2) SENTENCES OTHER THAN IMPRISONMENT, (3) PAROLE, (4) THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN FEDERAL PRISON, AND (5) OTHER PROVISIONS AFFECTING CORRECTION. IT IS PREDICTED THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL WILL NOT REDUCE THE VIOLENCE, STRIKES, AND RIOTS PREVALENT IN FEDERAL PRISONS. THE CURRENT CLIMATE WILL NOT BE IMPROVED. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT BE FOUND, SUCH AS THE SUBSTITUTION OF FINES FOR PRISON SENTENCES. THIS LEGISLATION IS ALSO CRITICIZED ON THE GROUNDS THAT ITS HARSH APPROACH TO PAROLE WILL KEEP MORE PRISONERS IN THE SYSTEM THAN ARE KEPT BY THE EXISTING LAW. IN REGARD TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN PRISON, NO PROVISIONS ARE MADE FOR DEALING WITH THE VIOLENCE, DREARINESS, AND HOPELESSNESS FOUND THERE. FINALLY, PROVISIONS FOR CONSECUTIVE OR CONCURRENT TERMS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE INNOVATIVE. THE BILL IS SEEN AS PUNITIVE, NOT HUMANITARIAN.