PUNISHMENT, COERCION, AND FORCE ARE DIFFERENT BUT RELATED CONCEPTS. IMPRISONMENT AS PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME INCAPACITATES THE PRISONER AND ACTS AS A COERCIVE THREAT TO OTHERS TO OBEY THE LAW. COERCION ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL BEHAVIOR BY MEANS OF THREATENING PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DEMANDS. THE ESSENCE OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST COERCION IS THAT IT LIMITS FREEDOM BECAUSE IT PLACES INDIVIDUALS IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES. IN A FREE SOCIETY, HOWEVER, COERCION IN ITSELF IS NOT SIGNIFICANT; THE CONCERN SHOULD BE WITH THE AMOUNT OF FORCE USED TO GAIN CONTROL OVER BEHAVIOR. B.F. SKINNER'S BELIEF THAT ONCE THE REAL NATURE OF COERCION IS UNDERSTOOD, IT WILL BE ABANDONED AS AN INEFFICIENT AND BRUTAL FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL, IS NOT SUPPORTED BECAUSE SKINNER CONFUSES COERCION WITH THE APPLICATION OF PUNISHMENT AND CONFUSES PUNISHMENT ITSELF WITH THE APPLICATION OF FORCE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PUNISHMENT, AND MOST ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE MAIN JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IMPOSSIBLE. THE REAL OBJECTION TO COERCION IS THAT IT DIMINISHES INDIVIDUAL UTILITY RATHER THAN FREEDOM. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS IS APPLIED TO SHOW THAT A PERFECTLY COMPETITIVE ECONOMY CANNOT MAXIMIZE SOCIAL WELFARE AND TO ASCERTAIN THE EXTENT TO WHICH COERCION CAN BE REPLACED BY INDUCEMENT IN CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. AN EXAMPLE OF THE APPLICATION OF COERCION IN CONTROLLING THE USE OF HEROIN IS DETAILED. SUPPORTING DATA AND EQUATIONS, AS WELL AS FOOTNOTES, ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)