The Advocate is running an interesting story on the recent practice of judges issuing orders concerning behaviors as part of the bail process. Typically such restrictions in the pst had been used to encourage defendants not to flee the state and return for a court hearing. Now, according to the Advocate, judges are using those restrictions to change other behaviors.

The story uses a local Stamford case to make the point, that a defendant suspected of drug dealing in a public housing facility had been restricted from going to a housing complex despite the fact that his grandmother lived there and was disabled. After the restrictions were in place, the Police rearrested the defendant after observing him allegedly doing a drug deal after the hours he was allowed to be on the premises.

That particular case represents the good intent of having judges issue such orders. While the trial process grinds on, the court is seen as attempting to do something to address the suspected and some would say, inevitable reoccurrence of a crime.

But, the premise of our whole court system is that any individual is innocent until proven guilty. And the slippery slope is engaged when we have judges determining that its ok to impose a restriction of basic rights while a trial is pending that determines the underlying guilt or innocence. There is a world of difference of being suspected of criminal behavior versus being convicted of criminal behavior.