---
title: Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XXI. Banishment and whipping as punishment for crime.
collection: code
id: ga-const:art-i-sec-i-para-xxi
cite_as: Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XXI
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xxi
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xxi.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xxi/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=f5de823e_0#page=654
date: 2016
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xx.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xxii.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CONSTITUTION OF THE / BILL OF RIGHTS / RIGHTS OF PERSONS
---

# Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XXI. Banishment and whipping as punishment for crime.

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

Neither banishment beyond the limits of the state nor whipping shall be allowed as a punishment for crime.

## Cross References

Corporal punishment and restraint, §§ 38-2-1055 and 42-5-58.

## Law Reviews

For article, ‘‘The Georgia Bill of Rights: Dead or Alive?,’’ see 34 Emory L.J. 341 (1985).

For note, ‘‘Behind Closed Doors: An Empirical Inquiry Into the Nature of Prison Discipline in Georgia,’’ see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 919 (1974).

## 1976 Constitution.

Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVIII.

## Banishment Beyond Limits of State.

The drafters of the constitutional prohibition against banishment limited this general definition by choosing to define banishment more narrowly to mean only banishment beyond the limits of the state. State v. Collett, 232 Ga. 668, 208 S.E.2d 472 (1974).

No prohibition against banishment

## From Specified Areas Within State.

The 1877 drafters of this constitutional provision intended to prohibit banishment ‘‘beyond the limits of the state,’’ but not to prohibit banishment from specified areas within the state. State v. Collett, 232 Ga. 668, 208 S.E.2d 472 (1974).

Banishment of a defendant from specified areas in Georgia, imposed as a condition for suspension of a sentence by a trial court, does not violate the public policy of the state. State v. Collett, 232 Ga. 668, 208 S.E.2d 472 (1974).

An order modifying the trial court’s prior banishment order imposed as a condition of the defendant’s probation was upheld on appeal, as was the denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw a negotiated plea, because: (1) the defendant’s sentence was independent, and thus, not part of the negotiated plea agreement; and (2) the trial court adequately considered that the defendant’s crimes were likely motivated by the relationship the defendant had with the victim, the defendant’s ex-spouse, where the ex-spouse resided and worked, as well as where the ex-spouse’s immediate family lived, by determining that the banishment order was issued to protect those affected, but also served a rehabilitative purpose by removing a temptation by the defendant to re offend. Hallford v. State, 289 Ga. App. 350, 657 S.E.2d 10 (2008).

Habeas court properly denied defendant’s petition for habeas relief based on the contention that a condition of probation banishing the defendant from every county in the State of Georgia but one was unconstitutional as the defendant failed to show that the probation condition to remain in Toombs County only was unreasonable or otherwise failed to bear a logical relationship to the rehabilitative scheme of the sentence pronounced. The Supreme Court of Georgia noted that the banishment was justified to protect the victim, the defendant’s ex-spouse, from the defendant’s propensity for violence toward the victim. Terry v. Hamrick, 284 Ga. 24, 663 S.E.2d 256 (2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 510, 172 L.Ed.2d 375 (2008).

Defendant failed to meet the burden of proving on the record that the condition of probation banishing the defendant from Bartow and Gordon Counties was unreasonable because the record contained no evidence supporting the defendant’s contentions regarding the restrictions on the defendant’s ability to obtain release from confinement and begin serving the remainder of a sentence under probation. Mallory v. State, 335 Ga. App. 852, (2016).

Cited in Sanchez v. State, 234 Ga. App. 809, 508 S.E.2d 185 (1998).

## Am. Jur. 2d.

21A Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 883 et seq.

## Am. Jur. Trials.

Public School Liability: Constitutional Tort Claims for Excessive Punishment and Failure to Supervise Students, 48 Am. Jur. Trials 587.