A substantial portion of the public feels that sentences for all types of offenses are not severe enough. This is most true for violent and sex crimes and for drinking-driving offenses. However, the majority of Canadians also favor developing sanctions other than imprisonment. An examination of Canadian attitudes toward crime indicates a gap between attitudes and the reality of crime. The public substantially overestimates the incidence of violent crime, the incidence of murder since the abolition of capital punishment, and the likelihood of recidivism. It is the distortion of reality that may contribute to the apparent punitiveness of Canadian attitudes. As to factors that should be considered in sentencing, offense seriousness, harm to the victim, premeditation, and prior record were seen as most relevant; and proportionality of sanction appears to be the major consideration. Further, while Canadians report wanting the court to be harsher, they generally are willing to consider alternatives to imprisonment. Even among those who view sentences as too lenient, harsher sentences were not viewed as the most effective way to control crime. Finally, the public's views of sentencing practices appears to be distorted by the types of information conveyed to them by the media. 22 tables, 1 note, and 5 references.