Why don't we exile citizens anymore? Exile, a common practice in the past, has largely disappeared from modern legal systems. It was harsh, but fair. If a citizen was an outlaw in one nation, they were to be considered outlaws in all nations. In the event of this, they would be expelled. If they tried to sneak back, they could be killed by the soldiers patrolling the borders.
We do use exile in a way, for non-citizens and prison transfers.I guess the real answer is the legal complications since the receiving state would have to agree as well, and why would they?
>>17982983do you consider forced relocation to siberian gulags to be a form of exile? What about forced relocation to Australian penal colonies or French Guiana?
>>17983016Basically, exile died when in the 19th century the world began to reform itself into nation-states with citizens.Earlier, it was more possible for people to move around, when there were poor (or none) regulations on who could live where.Besides that, exile was also more possible back when states had control of overseas territory.Some states still has a few overseas territory but these often have greater autonomy and self-regulating. A person from Paris can't just move to Reunion island.I guess exile is also simply not regarded as a justifiable punishment either. I'm just speculating now, but wasn't exile mostly used against those who wasn't exactly a danger to society, but still 'unliked' by society? Or perhaps someone who couldn't stop committing crimes despite punishment. I guess the answer there is that our criminal rehabilitation system is far more advanced and sophisticated these days for that.We've basically narrowed down punishment according to the legal code into two types: Fines and prison (if you are a citizen), as these are regarded as more proportionate and ethical.
Exiles were mostly "leader" or "visionary" types who could influence society in a bad or undesirable way. Like religious figures or writers or philosophers. Keeping them in a prison isn't gonna stop their ideas being spread, and executing them would just make them even more popular/martyrs. So exile it is.Today we're too far gone, 1st of all there literally isn't anyone whose words alone could influence a whole society to change the paradigm. Those with the power to influence are bought by the status quo instantly. Others are simply covid'd and put in a bag and nobody bats an eye, people are kept low energy so nobody can act upon anything anyway. There are no morals and scruples against those who challenge the status quo, they are suicid'd instantly. Exile is pointless today
>>17983100>Exiles were mostly "leader" or "visionary" types who could influence society in a bad or undesirable way.The British and French punished a lot of people with exile and transportation for minor infractions well into the 19th century. They basically had colonies that needed or could take people, so they shipped the refuse off.
>>17982983Political asylum is still essentially exile.Other than that, countries usually don't like taking in regular criminals. It wouldn't be feasible to have say American burglars and drug dealers sentenced to years of exile because other countries would see that they have criminal records and won't give them visa. Or you could hide the criminal record but that would mean that it would be harder for all US passport holders to move around.I guess we could still do Australia-style prison colonies, where criminals would be moved to some remote area they cannot leave. But those would still have to be guarded so they may be more expensive than prisons. Maybe nonviolent criminals could get offered such exile instead of prison time, on the condition that if they leave, they get the real prison.
