Preventive Detention and the Democratic State tracks the transformation of preventive detention from an emergency measure into an ordinary law enforcement tool in the democratic world. Historically, democracies used preventive detention only in the extraordinary circumstance in which the criminal justice system was impotent. They preferred criminal prosecution and its strict due process requirements to detaining people for a crime they may never commit. This book shows that major democracies have begun using detention as an insurance policy against dangerous people. In the process, they have embarked on a slippery slope that allows them to use preventive detention to bypass the criminal justice system. Already, detention has established a separate, inferior legal system for certain suspected criminals. Comparing preventive detention in India, England and the United States, the book brings to light its potentially dire consequences for the rule of law, due process rights and democratic principles based on the very real experiences of these countries.

In any society some people pose a risk to others. For hundreds of years preventive detention has been authorised by governments to ensure people are available for criminal proceedings (e.g. remand), in the mental health area, for quarantine, for inebriates, enemy aliens and sexual predators. This book asks and answers some of the fundamental questions about these regimes.

Preventive detention law is a subject which continues to receive great international attention. In recent years the legal rights of detainees have been more and more frequently litigated, and significant new approaches have been developed.

Arbitrary arrest and detention have been the most consistent violations of fundamental individual human rights throughout history. The world's major criminal justice systems reveal the historical struggle between monarchs and dictators on the one hand, and advocates of the supremacy of the rule of law on the other. This struggle has been over the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain persons whether they be accused of common or polical crimes. Preventive Detention: A Comparative and International Law Perspective seeks to reconcile theory and practice by selecting studies representing different legal systems, thus advancing the multi-disciplinary understanding of the application of international and regional human rights norms in criminal justice systems.

Preventive detention as a counter-terrorism tool is fraught with conceptual and procedural problems and risks of misuse, excess and abuse. Many have debated the inadequacies of the current legal frameworks for detention, and the need for finding the most appropriate legal model to govern detention of terror suspects that might serve as a global paradigm. This book offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of the detention of terror suspects under domestic criminal law, the law of armed conflict and international human rights law. The book looks comparatively at the law in a number of key jurisdictions including the USA, the UK, Israel, France, India, Australia and Canada and in turn compares this to preventive detention under the law of armed conflict and various human rights treaties. The book demonstrates that the procedures governing the use of preventive detention are deficient in each framework and that these deficiencies often have an adverse and serious impact on the human rights of detainees, thereby delegitimizing the use of preventive detention. Based on her investigation Diane Webber puts forward a new approach to preventive detention, setting out ten key minimum criteria drawn from international human rights principles and best practices from domestic laws. The minimum criteria are designed to cure the current flaws and deficiencies and provide a base line of guidance for the many countries that choose to use preventive detention, in a way that both respects human rights and maintains security.

This book analyses the preventative confinement of suspected terrorists with regard to different models of counter-terrorism policy within the context of international human rights law. The book is written from a global perspective drawing on cases and practice from different jurisdictions including the US, the UK and Australia.

Predictive Sentencing addresses the role of risk assessment in contemporary sentencing practices. Predictive sentencing has become so deeply ingrained in Western criminal justice decision-making that despite early ethical discussions about selective incapacitation, it currently attracts little critique. Nor has it been subjected to a thorough normative and empirical scrutiny. This is problematic since much current policy and practice concerning risk predictions is inconsistent with mainstream theories of punishment. Moreover, predictive sentencing exacerbates discrimination and disparity in sentencing. Although structured risk assessments may have replaced 'gut feelings', and have now been systematically implemented in Western justice systems, the fundamental issues and questions that surround the use of risk assessment instruments at sentencing remain unresolved. This volume critically evaluates these issues and will be of great interest to scholars of criminal justice and criminology.