The British experience with habitual offender legislation, like that of the United States, encompasses numerous statutory formulations, commission reports, and statistical surveys. Although there are major differences between British and American approaches to habitual offenders, particularly in the degree of sentencing and prosecutorial discretion, the two systems share many difficulties. Further, in Britain, as in the United States, the failure to reduce recidivism has become a symbol of the larger failure of the penal system. The most complex problem of habitual offender legislation focuses on defining the habitual offender. Once the target of the legislation is defined, further problems remain. These difficulties include determining the measure of proof required to show habituality, establishing who will determine when that burden is met, and developing appropriate sentencing guidelines for the habitual offender. Proposals discussed vary both in length of sentence and in conditions of imprisonment. Some individuals favor indeterminate sentencing, while others require a steady cumulation of sentences. Harsh confinement for the habitual criminal is suggested, while an environment geared to reforming the criminal and returning him to society is offered in rebuttal. These disagreements reveal an underlying debate about how the State justifies sentencing habitual criminals to extended prison terms. The central issue is whether the goal of extended prison terms is to protect society, to rehabilitate the criminal, or to punish the offender. The article provides 369 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)