Contrary to its supporters' assertions, mandatory community service does restrict liberty, and a sentence to community work can harbor both educative and punitive intent, although the law prohibits the latter. Since both general and individualized preventive effects are claimed for the community work measure, it appears likely that the effort to tailor individual assignments to each offender will be shortchanged in favor of perfunctory work orders that do not meet the specific educative needs of each case. Furthermore, the program rationale obliterates the distinctions between a criminal justice sanction in response to a law violation and social service assistance provided to needy and not necessarily criminally involved clients to compensate social or educational deficits. Suggestions for using community service as an early diversion mechanism to forestall further criminal justice processing actually extend the formal system to clients (misdemeanant first offenders) whose cases would otherwise be dropped. A judicially imposed counseling sanction is being used in combination with community service and alluded to as an alternative to formal probation; however, it appears to possess the same coercive and repressive features as the already existing probation service. The alternative of restitution is inapplicable to cases where a victim's health is involved, as well as in cases of petty theft where the monetary loss is insignificant and the victim an impersonal establishment rather than an individual. It remains questionable whether any of these alternative efforts are meeting criminal justice aims. Approximately 30 references are given.