Alessandro Corda has a new article that compares the treatment of regulatory collateral consequences in the United States and in European legal systems. He argues that the primary difference is that in Europe proportionality is central to punishment schemes, and that sentencing courts must consider the impact of all combined sanctions on the defendant, including collateral consequences, in deciding whether a sentence is proportional to the crime. “Collateral restrictions in the United States, instead, are not taken into account in determining the overall proportionality of the sentence to the seriousness of the offense since they are not considered as punishment.” Criminal courts in the United States rarely consider collateral consequences in imposing a sentence, and for the most part have not regarded them as any of their business. Corda points out that “Europe never moved completely away from a rehabilitative model of punishment,” and that “the ultimate goal of European penal systems widely remains the reintegration of ex-offenders.” In contrast, “the approach toward collateral restrictions in the United States tends to mirror prevailing criminal justice attitudes oriented primarily toward harsh and prolonged measures of penal control.” Even during a period of “penal climate-change,” when sentencing and corrections policies are being rethought…
Read moreTag: comparative law
50-State Comparisons
Subscribe to Email List
Join 1,122 other subscribers
Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Recommendations for Reform (Dec. 2025)

Restoration of Rights Project (RRP) Feedback Survey
Help us improve this resource.
The Restoration of Rights Project is committed to providing accurate, clear, and useful information to the public free of charge. Your feedback helps us improve the site and better meet the needs of people who rely on it.
This survey takes about 2 minutes. You can take the survey here.



