An injunction-only sanction deters neither deliberate violators nor forces construction to consider retroactive liability

Evidence

In the food and drug field, the problem is in part one of wilful violation. Would a wifful violator be deterred by knowledge that when he is discovered and proved to be in violation, an injunction would then issue? … If the injunction cannot serve as a sole remady, might it not be valuable as a supplementary remedy? Should criminal sanctions - or even a civil penalty, for that matter - be used in cases where both government officials and private persons have genuine doubt concerning the proper construction of the Act? Will not the courts find it easier to construe the Act in a manner to carry out its regulatory purposes, if the sole sanction is an order for the future? Or must construction take account of the potential retrospective liability? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1132

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Seizure scale determines whether it initiates a test case or permanently destroys a business — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1137; Government research into testing techniques can aid private voluntary compliance with law — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1142; Judicial power to issue mandatory injunctions prevents reckless property investment in zoning disputes — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1073

Broader Connections

• Judicial power to issue mandatory injunctions prevents reckless property investment in zoning disputes #corroborates (0.95) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1073