Collateral Consequences and the Preventive State

Collateral consequences are imposed as a measure of preventative risk management and should be regulated as such, rather than regulated as punishment. This article discusses the legal differences between punishment and preventative sanctions, pointing out that collateral consequences are framed and used to address the supposed risk of future crime, not respond to the crime that already took place. The author further points out that framing collateral consequences as punishment will do little to regulate or eradicate them, whereas framing them as preventative will allow for stronger regulation and scrutiny, to which most current collateral consequences would not hold up.


Mayson, S. G. (2015). Collateral Consequences and the Preventive State. Notre Dame Law Review, 91(1), 301–361. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795559

Recent Posts

See All

All of Us or None v. Hamrick In May 2021, the appellate court in California ruled in All of Us or None v. Hamrick that trial courts in the state cannot allow the public to search their online database