HERE'S WHAT READERS ARE SAYING:

Absolutely not.  It violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty, which, if not actually in the law, is certainly the American Way.  I am deeply offended that the question even arises.

Furthermore, I'd like to address the unusual condition for bond: Banishment from the location where the alleged offence occurred and will be tried makes it harder for the accused to appear.  That is called
setting them up to fail.  It is not the business of the court to set defendents up to fail to appear.
I'm not a lawyer but it is my understanding that bond is or is not granted based on flight risk.  If the accused is considered a flight risk, bond is not granted.  Conditions for bond should reflect flight risk and seek to minimize it.  As a condition for bond, banishment is counterproductive.  In my opinion, banishment encourages flight because it puts the accused on the first leg of the journey.  Again, it is not
the business of the court to set defendents up to fail to appear.

My $ .02,
Judith M. Shelton
Duluth, Georgia

Evidently this Georgia judge needs to study the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights states: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The purpose of bail is to reasonably assure that the defendant will show up for trial, and not attempt to flee the jurisdiction. Even in cases where a defendeant has access to vast resources with which to flee, bail is still set, and often the person's passport is surrendered to the court. This judge has turned, innocent until proven guilty on its head.
Though it may have taken two-hundred years, and the bloody Civil War, the Bill of Rights applies even in Georgia. It can be argued that to banish someone from their home and community, prior to trial, constitutes an excessive fine and perhaps a cruel and unusual punishment.

Peace,
Mary Laurent

Orange County Register

To: Jeffrey L. Seglin
I believe the county judge who imposed the pretrial banishment should be removed from office as too ignorant to sit in judgment of other humans.

Presumably, said judge went to law school once upon a time.  And, no matter how much he would like to whack those dopers but good, he should well know, as any law student must learn, that the Red Queen's method of imposing punishment before the conviction does not wash in the American
legal system.  Ever.  Not even in Georgia.

People merely ACCUSED of crimes are PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is as basic as any law student can get it.  Obviously, the Ga. judge in question has been on the bench too long and has come to believe that the basic rules of criminal procedure don't necessarily apply in HIS court.  I am sure, however, you will hear much from bigoted ignoramuses who say it is just fine he gave those potheads what they deserved.

I think community banishment is not a permissible punishment even POST-conviction, short of punitive confinement.  I have no doubt, however, that the judge in question "blackmailed" the accused to leave
town or enjoy no pretrial release at all.  High-handed judges have a lot of power to abuse.  You should have published his name.

His Honorable Arrogance needs a permanent "vacation" off the bench. Perhaps he should return to law school for a refresher course in criminal procedure.  Or take up working for Al Qaida.

H. Watkins Ellerson

per Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch 4/4/04

 

---

Richard Kruger
Fullerton, California

Dear Jeffrey,
No, it is not right to punish before trial.  Innocent until proven guilty is a tenet of our legal ethos.  However the banishment was not a sentence.  It was a bond.  The real question is "Was the bond excessive?"  I believe it was.
Regarding your comments about the fellow who was uncomfortable being involved with the state senator, I was hoping that you would have quoted Winston Churchill, "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

Michael Kalm, M.D.
Salt Lake City

The judge in Atlanta is way out of line.  These people were accused, not convicted.  Even though the article says that judges in Georgia are known for creative sentencing--the accused cannot be sentenced:  they haven't even been tried.  Moreover, the charge in this case shows that they were not a threat: they sold marijuana--presumably to willing buyers, and the amount in question--$160 worth--is minuscule.  The nature of the crime that these people have been charged with does not suggest that they present an
immediate threat to the community.  They should not have to leave.  This sounds like what I would call a case of "Reefer Madness":  sometimes I think marijuana does make people go crazy--in this case, the judge.

(Read the article in Utah Online:  the Salt Lake Tribune.)
 

Stephen Satris
Clemson University

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the e-mails to The Right Thing: Sound Off section of this Web site are solely the views of the those who sent them. They do not reflect the views of Jeff Seglin, The New York Times Syndicate or The New York Times Company.