American penal policy appears to be shifting away from practices based upon the rehabilitative ideal and toward those consistent with the retributively based justice model. Yet despite the appearance of a variety of reforms based upon desert, several problems associated with the model have yet to be resolved. This paper focuses on the difficulty of identifying a basis for the development of a scale of proportionality between crime and punishment. The use of public sentiment as a basis is considered, and the results of a survey of attitudes regarding appropriate punishment for crime are discussed. The results of this assessment appear to provide little evidence that citizens agree on the appropriate punitive response for criminal activity.American penal policy appears to be undergoing substantial changes. Perhaps the most significant change involves the fall from grace of the rehabilitative rationale (W. Bailey 1966;Lipton, Martinson, and Wilkes 1975; Martin, Sechrest, and Redner, 1981;Martinson 1974; Sechrest, White, and Brown, 1979). Although the rehabilitative model continues to be championed (e.g., Cullen and Gilbert 1982), it seems clear that legislative initiatives have moved away from policies based on the hope, expectation, or even intention of rehabilitation.Perhaps the most conspicuous challenger for the position occupied formerly by rehabilitation is what has variously been referred to as the "commensurate deserts," "just deserts," or "justice" model of punishment. This model is predicated primarily on the idea that punishment should be based on the seriousness of the offense (von Hirsch 1976(von Hirsch , 1985. Lest the model appear oversimplified, it ought be noted that various advocates of the justice model operationalize it differently. Although Morris (1974) rejects the use of prior record in the determination of punishment, for example, yon Hirsch (1981) finds prior record an acceptable variable for inclusion in the sentence-determination process.