Permanent-exclusion licensing sanctions are so powerful they are rarely invoked, weakening their deterrent value

Evidence

I this extreme sanction of permanently excluding a person fron an activity ever justified in the absence of a determination that the potivity itself must be restricted or the person is disqualified on some reasonable ground? Can it be justified on the theory that no other sanotion is as good a deterrent? … The Food and Drug Act poses in particular the question whether a conviction for orime should ever be imposed on the basis of absolute liability - i.e. in cases where the actor acted innocently and with all due care. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1099

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Widespread small fraud escapes private enforcement when no single victim suffers enough harm — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1077; Disproportionately harsh sanctions erode their own enforcement because officials decline to use them — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1098; Total bans like Prohibition fail without corresponding enforcement capacity — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 820 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Small proportionate sanctions earn more credibility than dramatic all-or-nothing ones #contradicts (0.85) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 108
• Total bans like Prohibition fail without corresponding enforcement capacity #corroborates (0.82) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 820
• Sanctions for violating communal norms are total exclusion, not tit-for-tat withholding #qualifies (0.75) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 822
• Sanctions targeting civilian populations are morally distinct from regime-targeted measures #qualifies (0.72) — Moustafa Bayoumi, How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? Being…, 1206