Say that mob boss Johnny Sack is released on bail, or paroled. (Two very different situations, I know.) I understand that the court or parole board could order that he stay away from certain people, or stay with the confines of a certain state or county, or even within his own house. But could the court say, "go where ever you want, but stay out of Brooklyn, or you are hereby banished from New Jersey?
I don’t know about courts, but in New York, not only can a parole board impose such a condition but an individual parole officer can restrict someone from being in a particular geographic area without permission. Every releasee is needs permission to leave the state , and many require permission to leave the county or city of residence but on an individual level, they can be required to remain away from a certain building or neighborhood. Theoretically, if there was a reason, a releasee could be permitted to travel anywhere in NYC except Brooklyn.
From Wikipedia
Echols County has become notable in recent years as it has served as a place of banishment for many of Georgia’s criminals. As the Georgia State Constitution forbids banishment beyond the borders of the state, officials instead ban the offender from 158 of Georgia’s 159 counties, with Echols remaining as their only option.[3] No such criminal has been documented as actually moving to Echols
A stalker was banished from Regina Saskatchewan last year. The judge is an acquaintance of mine.
That’s fascinating. I didn’t know that any place in the English common law world still used banishment. From reading the related article, however, it seems like they don’t banish you old school, meaning forever, but give you an option: either do 6 months in jail or stay out of every county in GA, except for Echols County for that 6 month time period.
My question is why limit it to a whole county? Couldn’t they get around the constitution by saying that you aren’t banished from the whole state, but you must stay in a 10’ by 10’ parcel of Farmer Johnson’s swampland?
Why Echols County? What makes it out of all the other counties in Georgia the one that a Georgia state resident convicted of a crime is restricted to? Is it unusually poor, bad to live in, swampy, or just the least politically savvy county in Georgia?
The main reason you can’t limit a person to being “banished” from a whole state is that a judge’s decision is reviewable on appeal and it’s very likely that another judge would find that type of broad sweep to be an abuse of discretion. There has to be some logical connection between what the court orders and punishment/prevention of crime. Judges hate, hate, hate being overturned/overruled. Hence, the more limited restrictions, as it is extremely difficult to establish that an entire state would be unwarranted.
At the point of explicitly limiting someone to a tiny plot of land, you would run into a lot of constitutional issues. If nothing else, usually the terms of probation/parole require the ability to move (you have to get a job, you have to report to your PO, you have to go to treatment). The limitation would mean that you could not comply with terms of probation/parole and could easily also be struck down on that basis.
A lot of sex offenders are effectively limited to very very small portions of municipalities that they can live in, although it’s through a series of rules instead of the outright banishment.
The article said that the county had only one town and one stoplight. There is also no meaningful opportunity there. The prosecutor mentioned that he doesn’t think that anyone has ever availed themselves of the opportunity to live in Echols County after being banished. They leave the state entirely.
It’s quite common, I understand, for sex offenders to be required to stay outside of some distance from schools or other places. That would meet the terms of the OP’s question. Of course, the purpose is to keep the offenders away from the people in those locations, but I’m pretty sure the bans, as they’re written, apply even when school is not in session.
I can’t remember the details, but I have a friend who was at a concert somewhere in North Carolina back in the early 1990’s (he lived in California) and was arrested on some fairly serious drug charges (the drugs were NOT his, but were found in the hotel room that he was staying in) and part of the eventual plea deal was him pleading guilty to reduced charges and then agreeing to never set foot in NC again… (at least that’s what he claimed, I am uncertain how accurately I have retold the facts here)
Yes.
Eugene, Oregon has in place a city ordinance that allows judges to ban people from downtown for minor crimes such as drunkenness and loitering. It’s called the ‘downtown exclusion zone’, and was basically enacted to keep the homeless out of downtown. One does not need to be convicted to be blacklisted. I would post a link, but I’m on an Android.
Many municipalities have similar ordinances, but those are from the legislature, not a court order or decision.
That is certainly possible- plea agreements can contain a huge array of terms. I just saw one the other day that gave the prosecutor’s office permission to search the person’s house without a warrant for the duration of their time on probation (if their was suspicion of violation of other terms). It is also different than what the OP is mentioning because a plea agreement is between the prosecutor’s office and the individual (with the court’s approval).
I guess I was wondering if effective banishment from a town or state is constitutionally permissible, why it isn’t used more often. Just going by what I see on TV dramas, for example it seems like the Feds could have prevented (e.g.) Feech La Manna or Phil Leotardo from getting involved in their respective crime families again, by forbidding them ever to set foot within a thousand miles of NYC. And more prosaically, if a county is having a problem with a drunk driver, I’d think they’d have incentive to forbid that person to enter the county again (thereby foisting the problem on some other county, of course).
Not exactly, or at least not as how I intended to frame the question. It’d be closer if the court ordered the offender to stay away from a particular school, not just schools in general. But really I was thinking in terms of whole counties or states, or at least very large neighborhoods.
But what happens in reality is that the laws say a sex offender must stay X number of feet away from a school, a day care center, a public arcade, etc. When you look at a map of the town, these circles are so overlapping as to not allow a sex offender ANYWHERE in the town. That adds up to an effective banishment.
It’s a little confusing because your question is so broad, including both a bail situation and a parole situation.
The question you asked about the mobsters- I’m not familiar with that situation. Were they even convicted of any crime? If they were, I would guess that they were convicted of only some (relatively) minor crime- like battery. There has to be a reasonable connection between what a court orders and the crime. So, a stipulation like “no contact with any members of the Montague family” could be reasonable if the person has a history of fighting Montagues. However, it would be hard to make an argument that the person should have no contact with any of the regions (cities) that the Montagues live in.
In the case of setting bail, the judge could put a bunch of conditions- including the type you indicate (subject to state law). When you post bail, you accept those conditions.
In the case of someone being on parole, I am not as familiar with a parole system, but I am more familiar with a probation system, so I will discuss that set-up (effectively, it is similar). When the person is determined to be guilty, the court can attach conditions specifically attaching some type of condition to the person’s conviction- say- no contact with elementary school children, no contact with any male children ect.- whatever they want that reasonably relates to the the conduct leading to the crime and is permitted by state law. However, what really governs a person on probation’s ability to travel/move about are the rules set by their parole/probation officer. Those are much more comprehensive and could entail almost anything.
It is possible to go back before the court and modify the terms of the conviction. For instance, if you had a condition in the conviction saying that a sex offender could not have contact with any male child relatives, but then the sex offender gives birth to a male child, you could get the judge to change the terms of the conviction to permit the probation/parole officer to give the offender access to the child at the PO’s discretion.
I knew some people in a touring band who had a similar thing happen in Idaho (although I would say for some spectacularly minor drug charges). They lived in Seattle and toured out to the midwest semi-frequently, so to drive to Chicago they’d either have to swing down through Nevada or go up through Canada.
I’m not quite sure exactly what happened legally, but I’m under the impression that the local prosecutor basically agreed not to prosecute them on the condition that they never came back to the Gem State. I have no idea how they planned on enforcing this, since it’s not like they ended up with an official criminal record or anything-- I have a feeling that if they snuck back now 15 years on it’d probably be fine.
I think the ever is the part that is not permissible. People who are out on bail or some sort of supervised release have given up some of their rights , but they regain them at some point. In any event, let’s say the Feds ban Phil Leotardo from getting within 1000 miles of NYC . How does that prevent him from re-involving himself in crime or even with the same family? Maybe his family has business to be handled in Las Vegas, or maybe he’s the brains of the operation and can do his part over the phone (just like others have run organizations from prison). The Feds will have to come up with a reason why such a restriction is necessary , and I’m not at all sure there is one.
They would have an incentive, but how would they enforce it ? You could possibly banish someone from Echols County,Georgia and enforce it if the population is small enough that every one , including the police, knows everyone else- but banishing them from the entire rest of the state? How does Dekalb County find out that the person they banned from 158 counties has simply moved to Houston county and how does Houston county know that Dekalb banished the offender to Echols county?They don’t- until the person gets arrested again. And maybe this time he wasn’t just driving drunk, but killed a few people. That’s where the questions will begin- (why didn’t Dekalb put him on probation, mandate treatment etc, instead of just hoping he would be a problem for some other area) and most government agencies/elected officials don’t want to have to answer those questions.
For those curious here’s a link on how it’s working
http://www.katu.com/home/related/63642872.html
From KATU