The Sentencing of Dangerous and Habitual Offenders in Canada

Abstract

and control are based primarily on a perception of risk or fear of future crimes, rather than actual harm already caused. Preventive detention, by its very nature, raises what the late Judge David B?zelon described as profound moral and legal questions.1 The introduction of the Canadian provisions reflected experience in both the United States and Great Britain, countries which for reasons of both history and geography have had a gravitational pull on the Canadian criminal justice system. This article reviews the history and present structure of the Canadian provisions for the sentenc ing of dangerous and habitual offenders. The experience with Habitual Offender legislation in Canada shows that the offenders caught up in its net were not the most violent or serious offenders and yet served extremely lengthy sentences, totally dispro portionate to the harm they caused or the risk they posed. This experience has significance for the present American embrace of three strikes legisla tion and the issue of over-inclusiveness. The second