Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#11

Post by Molitor5901 »

freeone3000 wrote: post #9
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #5

This is… surprising. Evidently you are ok if you are awake, but as soon as you fall asleep you can be arrested? You can only stay awake so long. This seems against human nature. Better not take a nap after your summer picnic!

Obviously it won’t be enforced against people who look like they could sleep anywhere else.

who look like they could sleep anywhere else.

What does someone look like that could sleep anywhere else ? That seems like we should judge how a person looks and presents, which certainly means our judgement will be dead wrong at times.

I don't like this ruling because I think it will be used to harass people for appearing poor or homeless.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#12

Post by legitster »

kemayo wrote: post #4

The court's previous ruling on this was that you couldn't make "being homeless" illegal, and so laws against things like sleeping in the park were only valid if there was a reasonable alternative available. Generally this meant that the municipality needed to provide homeless shelters. I can't say that I like this outcome, since now cities are motivated to just run the homeless out of town rather than helping them in…

> Generally this meant that the municipality needed to provide homeless shelters.

The previous ruling was always kind of a kabuki theater. Homeless people often don't want to live in shelters - the exposure to crime and drugs and rules and lack of space is often worse than just living outside. So the previous ruling was still a blank check to harass homeless people so long as you dumped a bunch of money into a terrible homeless program.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#13

Post by underseacables »

I disagree with this ruling, but something that really, really pissed me off is this paragraph:

"The town had no homeless shelter, aside from one run by a religious organization that required, among other rules, attendance at Christian services."

Am I the only one that thinks it's wrong to require someone to attend a church to receive services from that church? I go to church and we will try to help anyone we can without any preconditions. Mandatory attendance just seems… disrespectful of that persons own religious beliefs, and unchristian.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#14

Post by analognoise »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #10

I really don't like this ruling. My reasoning is that a public park, for instance, is public property available for use to everyone. Anywhere you go will either be private, or public property. The homeless cannot sleep on private land, fine, but it's coldly unreasonable to say they cannot sleep in the park at night. During the day, ok, move along, I can accept that but.. The homeless are humans and we should stop tre…

On the other hand, the homeless being in the park generally leads to trash - needles, excrement, etc. The homeless occupying public lands and making them unfit for other people deprives those other people of their right to use the park.

I should be free to walk downtown without stepping in human shit. I should not have to worry about needles and detritus in the public park.

Agree society needs a better solution. Perhaps we can tax the ultra wealthy at an ungodly rate and simply build housing.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#15

Post by legitster »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #5

This is… surprising. Evidently you are ok if you are awake, but as soon as you fall asleep you can be arrested? You can only stay awake so long. This seems against human nature. Better not take a nap after your summer picnic!

Most cities have posted hours you are technically allowed to be at the park. The majority opinion actually discusses this exact point:

"Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building."

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#16

Post by legitster »

Link to the actual opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf

> "Still, no one has asked us to reconsider Robinson. Nor do we see any need to do so today. Whatever its persuasive force as an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, it cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit’s course since Martin."

> "Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”

The argument is pretty interesting. You can't make something that is normally illegal legal just because of some trait of the person. If a park has posted hours or parking rules, you can't ask someone for proof they don't have a home to determine they broke the rules or not. Which is different than rounding up all of the homeless legally using the space during the day and telling them they have to leave.

They do have a problem with the 9th circuit's interpretation of the Eight Amendment. In the court's view, the eight amendment is about protecting you from unjust punishments. But you can't use that argument to determine if something is a crime.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#17

Post by Molitor5901 »

analognoise wrote: post #14
Molitor5901 wrote: post #10

I really don't like this ruling. My reasoning is that a public park, for instance, is public property available for use to everyone. Anywhere you go will either be private, or public property. The homeless cannot sleep on private land, fine, but it's coldly unreasonable to say they cannot sleep in the park at night. During the day, ok, move along, I can accept that but.. The homeless are humans and we should stop tre…

On the other hand, the homeless being in the park generally leads to trash - needles, excrement, etc. The homeless occupying public lands and making them unfit for other people deprives those other people of their right to use the park. I should be free to walk downtown without stepping in human shit. I should not have to worry about needles and detritus in the public park. Agree society needs a better solution. Perh…

I agree with you 100%. We need a better solution. A narrow tax on the wealthy specifically for homelessness would be fantastic.

I am deeply suspicious of "taxes on X" because that money rarely, if ever, goes to where it's most needed. It would be great to create a tax on the wealthy which may only be used for homeless accommodations, first, services for the homeless second, and everything else last. If there was a clear 1:1 application of those tax dollars I think it would receive wide support, but I doubt politicians would allow money to be so limited like that. Not when there are so many other...issues they would rather spend it on.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#18

Post by seattle_spring »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #10

I really don't like this ruling. My reasoning is that a public park, for instance, is public property available for use to everyone. Anywhere you go will either be private, or public property. The homeless cannot sleep on private land, fine, but it's coldly unreasonable to say they cannot sleep in the park at night. During the day, ok, move along, I can accept that but.. The homeless are humans and we should stop tre…

The behavior of the homeless people living in a public park often makes said park unusable for everyone except them. How do you reconcile that fact with your opinion that "public parks are for everyone"? A public park provides far broader use to the general public when used as a park for all, as opposed to a campsite, chop shop, or drug dealing hotspot.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors in Homelessness Case

#19

Post by D13Fd »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #10

I really don't like this ruling. My reasoning is that a public park, for instance, is public property available for use to everyone. Anywhere you go will either be private, or public property. The homeless cannot sleep on private land, fine, but it's coldly unreasonable to say they cannot sleep in the park at night. During the day, ok, move along, I can accept that but.. The homeless are humans and we should stop tre…

Yeah but this point has nothing to do with the actual ruling.

The ruling is that the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the constitution does not prohibit the government from banning camping on public property. That's it.

Post reply on HN