The two competing ideologies that have shaped prison policies continue to coexist precariously: the ideology of retributive justice and the liberal-utilitarian ideology of deterrence and correction. Prison policy founded on 'just punishment' must give more consideration to fairness and equity than to deterrent or correctional objectives. This policy's power lies in its preoccupation with processes and procedures that insure fairness; practical outcomes, such as reduced crime rates or increased cost effectiveness are not pursued. The history of deterrent corrections gives rise to profound skepticism concerning the practical outcomes of any change in corrections policy or programs, while contemporary expectations hold that prison will be needed for many years to come. Nevertheless, despite the failure of corrections with a rehabiliation policy, the rehabilitative ideal remains an ideology in good standing. The older prison reform movement is being currently transformed into a vigorous community corrections movement, fueled by public funds and supporting the search for alternatives to imprisonment. New procedures such as work-release, halfway house, and educational furloughs are eroding the dichotomy between imprisonment and liberty. The boundary lines of probation-probation-institution-parole that defined the conventional corrections system are now becoming blurred. Community corrections are justified for their ability to reduce recidivism, be more humane, be less costly, and more individualized. Critics raise the specter of the dangerous offender (who is less controllable in the community) and suggest that the movement may be creating a new set of corrections decisionmakers and a wider network of increasing increments of control with fewer legal protections of individual rights. If these observations are accurate, community corrections is being trapped in its own rhetoric, like its predecessor the prison reform movement. Eighteen references are provided. (Author abstract modified)