There's no place like home- but what happens when home doesn't want you
anymore? This is what happens when you are banned from your own country.
Formally known as exile, it is a punishment that has been discarded by the modern world
in favor of more traditional punishments such as either the death penalty or imprisonment.
Per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the punishment of exile is technically illegal,
not to mention largely impractical given that exile is typically a
punishment for individuals seen as a threat to the current government.
Modern mass media gives these individuals a platform no matter the country of origin,
so authoritarian countries such as China and Iran simply imprison or murder political dissidents.
However, the state of Georgia, who likes to occasionally pretend it's still 1820,
actually has a law on the books where criminals face the punishment of banishment. The Georgia
state constitution forbids banishment outside of the state though, and thus
criminals are instead banished from all but one of the state's 158 counties, with Echols
County being the only county criminals charged with various crimes such as drug possession or
sale, burglarly, stalking, assault or battery, prostitution, and making terror threats to a judge
can live. Instead, most criminals simply choose to leave the state altogether.
But that's not the only US state to practice banishment. Sixteen states have constitutional
provisions against banishment, and in states without these provisions appeals
courts have generally shot down the sentence. Tennessee, which rarely realizes it's not 1820,
still allows permanent exile from the state, and Maryland's constitution prescribes it
for the crime of corruption- the thinking being that a corrupt public official has no
business remaining in the state and within the systems they used for their advantage.
But while outright exiles are largely illegal,
the nuances of banishment see it used as a punishment in specific situations.
Exiling an American citizen from their own country is unconstitutional, but the United
States regularly deports non-nationals and forbids them from re-entry. Should these
individuals re-enter they are either immediately deported again, or sometimes imprisoned.
An individual may be banished from areas around schools or day care
facilities depending on their crime though, and this is an increasingly
popular punishment in the US. Gang members are also sometimes banished from their hometowns,
in an effort to try and disconnect them from the very influences that turned them the way they are.
Given a lot of gang's national reach though, this likely has rather limited effectiveness, and is
probably counter-intuitive to rehabilitation. Banishment can often cut someone off from their
support networks in the form of family and friends, and as has been proven repeatedly,
without these support networks the odds of reformation plummet dramatically.
Banishment, or exile, however has a long history that stretches back to the very
dawn of human civilization. While its place in Western penal codes can be traced back to the
ancient Greeks and Romans, the practice was widespread throughout the world long before
that. The punishment was considered more humane than outright execution,
but in the dark days of antiquity, could very likely still be a death sentence. With
communities so far apart, and other towns or villages largely xenophobic towards strangers,
banishment would force someone to wander the wilderness and attempt to live on their own.
Survival is pretty tough stuff, and even tougher when you're all alone. Cut off from a community's
support, starvation, injury, or illness would quickly claim banished individuals.
Banishment was a very effective measure for a long time. The punishment was as dreaded as a
death sentence, and having a family member or close friend who was exiled would be a
humiliating affair. In the necessarily tight knit communities of the past, this would severely erode
one's social standing, which could affect everything from regular business affairs
to marriage propositions. An entire family could be condemned by the shame of exile,
as others ostracized the remaining family members and marriage proposals were declined. In the case
that the exiled individual was the head of the household though, the condemnation of the family
could be quite literal- without a bread-winner a family would quickly fall to poverty,
and with no community support might well face death from starvation. Thus sometimes,
entire families would follow the individual into exile- better to work together at survival in
the wild than to slowly starve to death and die off in the village.
However as time wore on and human settlements increased in number and size, the effectiveness
of exile as a punishment began to diminish. A banished individual could simply make their
way to another community- ideally a larger one where they could become 'lost in the crowd'.
Smaller communities might still have trade ties, and thus word would spread from one to another,
making an exiled individual unwelcome in their neighboring village.
As villages grew into cities though, the large metropolitan spaces gave plenty
of room for one to lose themselves, and their past, amongst the mass of humanity.
In Roman times, exile would regularly be practiced on individuals who hadn't quite deserved a death
sentence, or perhaps in response to petitions for leniency by influential individuals. Given
the bloodthirsty nature of Roman culture though, exile was actually implemented to help curb the
amount of capital punishment handed out by the state. Exile also allowed a degree of flexibility,
as opposed to death which was rather final. Thus an individual could be exiled from cities,
regions, or even the empire outright, with the punishment more fairly matching
the crime. Sometimes these punishments were temporary, other times they were permanent,
and an individual could even opt for exile in order to avoid a worse punishment.
The mildest form of banishment in Roman culture was Relegatio, and was widely used on undesireable
foreigners. The decree would simply demand that an individual, or group, leave Rome altogether, or a
specific province, for a certain length of time. Sometimes this could be for life, but unlike other
forms of banishment, Relegation still allowed Roman citizens to retain their civil rights.
The more severe form of banishment was aquae et ignis interdictio,
which means 'debarred from fire and water'. This form of banishment could also be for a
specific length of time, or for life- but the condemned suffered a further penalty:
they lost all rights as a Roman citizen for the duration. This included property, which
would often be confiscated by the state. Even if one was not exiled from the entirety of Rome,
living within the empire without the protection of Roman civil rights was a rather perilous affair.
Deportation was the most severe form of banishment, and in this case the individual
was immediately arrested and forced into exile outside of the empire.
Often this meant the individual was sent to live on a remote Mediterranean island, where it
was reasonably certain they would never be able to return from. Should the exiled somehow find
their way off the island though, re-entering Rome would often lead straight to capital punishment.
Exile quickly grew in popularity in Rome, and became the default punishment for anyone
seen as threatening the established way of Roman life and public morality. To that end,
Jews, philosophers preaching non-state sponsored ideologies, magicians, dancers, actors, poets,
and astrologers would commonly face exile, with most of the victims being men. Most of
these exiles though didn't face Deportatio or even aquae et ignis interdictio, as they were allowed
to retain their property, but rather they were simply told to stay a certain distance outside of
specific cities, provinces, or the empire itself. As they were allowed to retain their property,
those banished could sell their property off to fund their journey and new start at life.
Fast forward to the age of sail though, and several countries saw exile, or transportation,
as an extremely effective way of expanding their global power.
During the age of sail European powers began setting up colonies all over the world,
most notably in the Americas, Africa, and South East Asia. However, the colonial powers faced
one rather big problem- few people were willing to make the often months-long journey to live
somewhere relatively uncivilized. Fewer yet were willing to actually stay there long-term. Soon,
European courts came up with an elegant solution- simply send people there against their will.
European penal code during this time was absolutely out of control,
with England itself having well over one hundred offenses punishable by death.
By simply changing some of these punishments from death to transportation, European powers generated
a veritable army of unwilling laborers to help expand their colonial power around the world.
In England, people were being sent to the American colonies as a punishment since 1654,
but with the passing of the Transportation Act of 1717, the number of forcibly transported
individuals quickly skyrocketed. Criminals were still being sent to America until the
very outbreak of the war of independence. When the Americans won their freedom with the thanks
of the French, the British were faced with a serious problem- where to send thousands
of unwanted criminals? The answer presented itself shortly after the discovery of Australia.
In May 1787, 11 ships left from Portsmouth with 736 convicts on board. 40 of them died during the
incredible eight-month journey to the land down under. That hardly stopped British courts from
ordering many more people to their Australian colonies though, and the population of convicts
vs actual settlers was exponentially larger- something that made regular settlers rather
uncomfortable. Most of these convicts though were eligible for return to england after a set amount
of time- typically 7 to 14 years years- but this came with a huge catch. While forced to work
in penal colonies building basic infrastructure for nascent colonies, prisoners earned no money.
Thus when their sentence was up they faced the rather difficult task of paying for a ticket
back home. Some were lucky to have family that could secure them a voyage back home,
but most simply opted to just stay and build a new life in Australia. This was not an accident,
but had always been carefully considered by British courts who knew growing thriving
colonies in the most far-flung parts of the world would be incredibly difficult.
But most of these criminals weren't as bad as one might assume. Most of those facing banishment
were accused of theft, and this punishment was doled out regularly for even the most petty of
larcenies. Children were frequently charged with theft for simply stealing an apple,
and could very realistically face the possibility of transportation
for it. Other convicts were protesters, or individuals seen as troublemakers in
the eyes of the law. Only about 15 percent of those facing transportation were women though,
making things rather grim for any men forced to remain behind after their sentence.
Once in Australia, convicts would be put to work building roads and other public
works. They were integral to the building of basic infrastructure in budding colonies,
and were usually assigned to a free settler in the same way that southern Americans used slaves-
though British convicts in exile did still have certain rights that, in theory at least,
protected them. In practice, these rights were largely ignored by their settler overseers, and
local authorities were not very often concerned with the welfare of convicts. Sometimes though
settlers would face punishment for the abuse of convicts- but the sheer distance between the
colonies and England meant enforcement of civil rights for convicts was rather lax. Punishments
could run from increased sentences, to whippings or beatings. Those who were viewed as particularly
troublesome would be sentenced to work in even more remote settlements as part of a chain gang.
However, this life wasn't all that bad for some convicts, as many free settlers treated their
convicts much like hired hands rather than slaves. This could make a long sentence much
more endurable, and the bonds of community would make the convict's transition from
prisoner to settler much easier, enticing them further to simply stay. Some could
even earn reduced sentences for good behavior, earning their freedom after four years. However,
this did not include a ticket home, and thus most convicts were simply forced to stay. If
you are an Australian citizen today, odds are good you descended from one of these prisoners.
Banishment and exile have largely fallen out of favor throughout the world though,
and most exiles today are voluntary. The Dalai Llhama for example is a voluntary
exile from his home of Tibet, having fled after the Chinese government invaded and
forcibly annexed the country. Given that he is a figure of Tibetan freedom though, had
he remained behind it's almost certain he would have been imprisoned for life or simply killed,
as has happened with many other religious figures the Chinese government views as troublesome.
Napoleon Bonaparte though may be the most famous exul in history,
having been exiled twice after Europe asked him kindly to stop trying to take over the world.
After being defeated the first time, he was sent into exile on the Mediterranean island of Elba
in 1813, but with the help of supporters managed to return to France to wage a new war. After
his second defeat he was once more exiled, and there he’d die never to return to glory again.
Now exile your boredom with What Actually Happened To Prisoners Sent To Australia,
or click this other video instead!