Why Isn't Exile Used as a Form of Punishment Any More in the United States?

Considering how easy it is for anyone to walk back into the U.S. after having been deported several times, exile is not only impractical but also a ridiculous punishment. This article explores the reasons why exile has largely fallen out of use as a means of punishment in the United States.

Historical Context and Relevance

Exile was once a common tool for punishing various offenders, especially in colonial America where religious settlements often used it to enforce conformity. However, as the nation grew and political and economic landscapes shifted, the use of exile became increasingly obsolete.

During the period of westward expansion, the U.S. opened its doors to immigrants to populate the interior. With a fast-growing and relatively liberal society in the 1800s, immigrants were often political exiles and economic refugees. The rise of modern prisons and the prison/penitentiary model further diminished the need for exile as a form of punishment. Instead, there was a shift towards more rehabilitative measures like fines and prison sentences, which aimed to reintegrate criminals into society.

Modern Implications and Challenges

By the mid-20th century, the strategic imperative to 'brain drain' the Soviet Union by welcoming political exiles made the use of exile as a form of punishment in the U.S. unthinkable. Today, the practical and political challenges of implementing exile as a punishment are significant. Several states have laws barring extra-state exile, while most others allow local banishments.

Another key reason is that the receiving state or locale is not required to keep the exiled individual. For instance, Cuba historically remedied its criminal population by sending them to the U.S., but the current U.S. administration is more lenient with violent criminals.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's stance on banishment, as seen in Hamm v. Mississippi, highlights the impracticality of implementing such a measure. The court's decision underscores the constitutional and logistical issues that make exile an impractical form of punishment.

Impracticality and Constitutional Issues

The enforcement of exile is simultaneously problematic due to constitutional and standard legal issues. Hamm v. Mississippi specifically endorsed the concept of banishment but emphasized the need for clear and well-defined procedures to ensure constitutional compliance.

Additionally, the concept of imprisonment can also be considered a form of exile, as it separates individuals from society for a defined period. However, this form of punishment is more manageable and accountable compared to physical exile.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while exile was once a viable method of punishment, modern legal and societal norms have rendered it impractical. The challenges of enforcement, the lack of cooperation from receiving states, and evolving legal interpretations all contribute to the decline of exile as a punitive measure in the United States. As the nation continues to evolve, it is unlikely that exile will regain its place as a form of punishment.