Originally adopted for its general deterrent effect and to keep unrehabilitated dangerous offenders confined, the indeterminate sentence has been used less often in modern times. Increasing criticism has been levelled against indeterminate sentencing due to the failure of the sanction to prevent violent crime, the inaccuracy of predictions concerning future offender behavior, and the tendency of property offenders to be given indeterminate sentences and not perpetrators of serious crimes. Even among a large group of violent offenders, the chances were high that only a few would repeat their offense. Thus, such offenders were still kept in prison to prevent the rare serious offense. Other disadvantages to the indeterminate sentence include (1) difficulties in setting the actual length of incarceration for certain offense categories, (2) the appearance of punishing the offender for what might happen and (3) serious psychological effects on the offender who does not know the release date. Severe limitations on the use of the indeterminate sentence were implemented in Finland, Denmark, and Norway in the early 1970's. The sanction was limited to offenders guilty of specified serious violent offenses and who also had a past record of one or more similar offenses. Therefore, the trend in Scandinavia is toward the total abolition of indeterminate incarceration. No references are given.