posted
It seems to me that this is nothing but a Restraining Order. I don't think a crime needs to be commited for one person to get a restraining order against another. Only some for of harassment or some activity that creates fear in the person seeking the Restraining Order. So, in that sense, I don't see this as punishment before crime.
The person who is the subject of this very unique type of Restraining Order will have already established themselves as a 'public nuisance' at the location in question. Even if they have not yet been convicted of a primary crime.
I really don't see the problem in general, although I can think of specific circumstances where a problem could occur. For example, what if the location in question is very near the person's home. They could be in violation while sitting quietly in their living room. Also, what happens if the location in question is a main thoroughfare and the reasonable and logical route for the 'subject' to travel is past that location?
Still there is a difference between passing a location and lingering there.
Overal, I don't see any civil rights violations any more than I see them with a vaild court ordered Restraining Order between individuals.
posted
We have the right to lock some people up who haven't been found guilty yet. We have the right to evict them from their homes and make them stay away from their wives and children. We have the right to make them post a bond. We have a right to tell them they can't travel out of state. We have a right to tell them what house they must live in. We have a right to force them to submit to drug tests. We have a right to tell them they can't associate with someone who has been convicted of a felony.
Certainly it's possible to disagree that these are sound policies. But it's very hard to argue that the stay-away orders are contrary to the existing legal system when all of these are well-established as permissible conditions of pretrial release.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |