Banishment for a Sex Crime

When I've written about banishment before, I've typically focused on how residency restrictions are a form of banishment. In this case, there is an actual banishment sentence:

A 40-year-old Wisconsin woman who admittedly had sex with a 16-year-old high school classmate of her daughter, while she was serving as his tutor, has been sentenced to a one-year jail term--and banished from her hometown for 15 years.

Since she is employed by her parents in Amery, a village of 2,800, this will force her to find a new job, reports the Pioneer Press. Brenda Baillargeon reportedly had repeatedly violated restraining orders prohibiting her from contacting the victim. She resigned her job as a teacher's aide as the case was being investigated.

While I've opposed residency restrictions because such provisions are banishment, I have no problem with the sentence in the story. If a judge finds banishment from a specific locale makes sense as part of person's sentence, that is an effective use of the punishment. The problem is that residency restrictions make no individual risk assessments, are applied with no procedural protections, and do not actually inhibit offenders from recidivism.

HT: Above the Law

Comments

[Daniel]

I totally disagree with banishment in all cases as a matter of unsound public policy. All you are doing is tossing the problem onto someone else's shoulders. There was a case in my local area where the judge not only banished the sex offender from the county, the plea agreement stipulated that that had to live in a specific community. Needless to say, the recipient community was not amused at all by that decision; there has been talk among state legislators to make banishment against the law.

It was an interesting case because the person got probation....despite raping two pre-teen children in the same family and a five year old in another. Probation didn't even cause people to blink an eye. But banishment sure got people's hackles up.

[S.O.]

I completely agree with Daniel on Banishment being wrong as a public policy. As an individual sentence, I cannot say that I am against it, as long as it is to truly protect the victim, IF they are in danger of being again violated. What must be balanced is justice versus retribution. Retribution is not justice, it is akin to vigilantism, which is illegal. What needs to occur is more sentences based in this vein, where the singular offender is evaluated, and if found to be a danger to an individual in a region, should be given such punishment.