Should you be excluded from an area of a city, if not convicted?

Those areas being, those considered with higher than normal crime rates. In Cincinnati it was illegal,before a court ruling, to be in certain areas of the city even if only arrested. Even if the arrest did not meet the standards of probable cause, which is required for an arrest anywhere in America. In particular, this area of the city was one called Rhine-over-the River.

Individuals who wanted to see their children or grandchildren were barred from that part of the city for 90-360 days, depending on a conviction or not. There are major problems with a law which bars someone from an area if convicted. One that does so without a conviction is blatantly unconstitutional and should be struck down on its' face.

Its' an outright violation of our Constitutional protections on due process, under the law. Punishment without conviction beyond reasonable doubt, or a plea bargain, completely violates those rights. If someone like Newt Gingrich becomes president, with his war on the judiciary, expect a court system that cares even less about our civil rights.

Cinicinnati, Ohio is not the only city that had these unconstitutional exclusion zones. Portland, Oregon, supposedly a stronghold of progressive thought, also had them. A person not convicted in that city also faced exclusion from certain areas for 90 days. Now, if someone thinks this is a good idea, fine, but just be sure that you are stating our Constitution no longer really applies.