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.

When can a person be detained by the state solely for the purpose of preventing future harm?It is widely accepted that an actor who is unable to avoid breaking the law because of a mental disorder may not be punished but may be detained for as long as he remains dangerous. But what about those who are not legally insane and who may be held responsible for their behavior? Is it ever permissible to detain them to prevent future harm?Once upon a time the negative answer to this question was also widely accepted:no one who is sane and responsible for his behavior may be detained solely on the ground that he was dangerous and might commit crimes in the future. He might be punished for his behavior, but he might not be detained independently of punishment. However, over the last thirty years the answer to the question has changed.It is now possible (1) to detain before trial solely on the basis of the possibility that the accused will commit the sort of crime he is accused of (but not yet convicted of); (2) in many jurisdictions to detain indefinitely after trial, conviction, and completion of the penal sentence sex offenders and those found guilty but mentally ill (though not legally insane); and (3) to detain indefinitely without trial and conviction those suspected of being terrorists or supporting terrorist activity.This book traces the development in Supreme Court cases and in national legislation of these various grounds of preventive detention, a course of development that the author believes is contrary to what were once considered fundamental principles of American law.