I was curious so I googled it.
> An anti-social behaviour order (ASBO /ˈæzboʊ/) is a civil order made in the United Kingdom against a person who had been shown, on the balance of evidence, to have engaged in anti-social behaviour. The orders were introduced by Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1998,[1] and continued in use until abolished in England and Wales by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 on 20 October 2014—although they continue to be used in Scotland and Northern Ireland.[2] ASBOs were replaced in England and Wales by the civil injunctions and criminal behaviour orders
So in England and Wales (covering most of the population of the UK), it has been replaced by CBOs:
> A CBO can be issued following a conviction for any criminal [2] offence in the Crown Court, a magistrates' court or a youth court. There is great discretion on the content of the order. A CBO can prohibit the offender from doing anything described in the order or require the offender to do anything described in the order or both.[1]
> For a CBO to be made the court must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offender has engaged in behaviour that caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; and that the court considers making the order will help in preventing the offender from engaging in such behaviour.[1]
That sounds somewhat reasonable? Are there examples of this being abused by courts? Sounds like a perfect and light answer to hooliganism, the recent far-right rioters, etc etc. Instead of locking them up for a prolonged period of time, a short sentence + restrictions to ensure they don't repeat offend.
There remain at least two difficulties. The first is that it gives a general power to make any legal act illegal, on a person-by-person basis. So you can, for example, be exiled from a particular area by the judge, with criminal penalties for disobeying (even though that's not a prescribed punishment in itself for any criminal offence). Where the order prohibits things that are likely preparatory to further crime and not something someone would want to do otherwise (car thief prohibited from touching unoccupied cars, for example, as in a recent case) it makes a lot of sense. But it does rely on the discretion of the judge being exercised reasonably.
The second one is much blunter: if you tell someone who has already broken the law (and doesn't care) that they can't do something, they are quite likely to ignore you. So they can generate quite a lot of further punishment/court time without actually deterring much. That's more of a practical objection than a philosophical one, though.