[deleted]
US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
71–80 of 291 posts
Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#72Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#73This is not about criminalizing homeless. This was San Francisco's position in their brief:
To address the homelessness crisis.” San Francisco Brief 7. The city “uses enforcement of its laws prohibiting camping” not to criminalize homelessness, but “as one important tool among others to encourage individuals experiencing homelessness to accept services and to help ensure safe and accessible sidewalks and public spaces.”
Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we're set on expending resources. If we're going to spend the resources to incarcerate these folks, would not the resources be better spent (with much better potential RoI, no less) on assisting persons in obtaining living situations?
What do you tell the families who scrimped, saved, and generally busted ass to be able to afford their homes?
Good news, instead of spending $45K/year of your hard earned tax money to keep Homeless Joe in jail, we're going to spend $10K of your hard earned tax money to keep him housed.
Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's now, effectively, illegal to just exist as a homeless person. Sleeping in your car? Jail. Sleeping under a bridge? Jail. Sleeping on a park bench? Jail. Sleeping in the woods? Jail.
One city banned camping in public, it was challenged, SC said "yep, that's a fair law". After this decision other cities may also ban camping, while some cities may welcome public camping. The SC is leaving it to the lowest level of government to decide for themselves, upholding a democratic principle.
IDK man, I think arresting people for just existing in public who have nowhere else to go is a morally reprehensible act and has no right existing in a form of government that should operate under the best interest of it's citizens.
But that's just me I guess.
Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we're set on expending resources. If we're going to spend the resources to incarcerate these folks, would not the resources be better spent (with much better potential RoI, no less) on assisting persons in obtaining living situations?
What do you tell the families who scrimped, saved, and generally busted ass to be able to afford their homes?
That they were exploited, because no one should have to "bust their ass" to an exceptional level in order to afford a necessity. Also that we're going to make it up to them in some other fashion. Also pointing out that home-ownership is financially advantageous for tax purposes, so it already has been made up to them, to some degree.
Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#77Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is inhumane that we let them rot on the streets Agree. But is it cruel and unusual? The court says no.
The court rules that it is not cruel or unusual to arrest and jail people for camping in public, right?
> court rules that it is not cruel or unusual to arrest and jail people for camping in public
It rules that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t substantially restrict what constitutes a crime, just the punishment. (It restricts criminalising status. So the court mostly focussed on whether the law criminalises homelessness, versus specific actions, which it found it does not.)
Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#79I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. For a country that prides i…
Re: "Most homeless are elderly and mentally ill."
Mentally ill, yes. Elderly, no.
Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we're set on expending resources. If we're going to spend the resources to incarcerate these folks, would not the resources be better spent (with much better potential RoI, no less) on assisting persons in obtaining living situations?
What do you tell the families who scrimped, saved, and generally busted ass to be able to afford their homes?
nobody seems to have this concern when we provide room and board in prisons.