Our paper, "Beyond Crime Seriousness: Fitting the Punishment to the Crime" (Rossi et al., 1985), attempted to accomplish two main tasks. First, we presented an exposition of how the factorial survey approach can enhance empirical assessments of the complex judgment principles involved in public perceptions of just punishments for convicted offenders. Second, we showed that there is not a one-to-one direct relationship between serious ness values of crime and desired sanctions. Instead, the impact of crime seriousness is modified by the characteristics of offenders and victims and by the consequences of the crimes. We believe that Durham (1986) has no quarrel with our paper over the potential usefulness of the factorial survey approach or the importance of determining the components of public attitudes toward punishment. Durham's criticisms of our research seem to fall into two categories. The first concern is that, without further evidence to the contrary, our use of the factorial survey technique may have failed .. to produce a crime-event realm that approximates that found in the real world " Consequently, the likely presence of atypical crime scenarios may have produced distorted judgments by our respondents in comparison to judgments that might have been rendered had the crime scenarios more closely approximated the more usual distributions of crimes and offenders. Because this concern is the essential theme in three of the four subsections of Durham's comment, it is the focus of our reply. The second type of concern expressed by Durham pertains to the dimension of crime seriousness. Here, he emphasizes the possibility that errors were introduced by our measure of this variable. Since our paper both acknowledged and discussed possible difficulties associated with some of the crime seriousness scores, we discuss them only briefly in this reply.