Social Can homeless people be fined for sleeping outside? A rural Oregon city asks the US Supreme Court

[Seano]

I don't see how you can possibly find a constitutional argument that allows for fining someone for sleeping or standing in a public space like a park. And I would struggle even more to find a textual or originalist argument for that given the country's rural start.

We already have and have always had laws for vagrancy.

 

[ferrisjso]

The fact that drug use is illegal, but this persists as a problem, demonstrates precisely why the law is insufficient to deal with the persistence of the problem.

I seek to target the most problematic population. They aren't victims. On the contrary, if anything, they are victimizers. They refuse to change their behavior to stop negatively affecting everyone around them, and to live in accordance with laws governing everyone which were legally established. You clearly have this warped notion they are helpless, or just down on their luck. They are not. Almost anyone familiar with them learns that, for the overwhelming majority of them, their lifestyle is a result of their choices, choices they continue to repeat every day, not an unfortunate conclusion of events or conditions outside their control.

Yes they chose to not live their life under conditions they felt were unacceptable. While their stories and circumstances may differ thats the one common thread. You feel it is their obligation to do what you want them to do and if they don't they should be punished with violence. In a country that is supposedly "free" and can't stop fawning over itself bragging about how free it is.

Also most people in this country are 2-3 capitalist decisions and/or acts of god away from joining one of those camps. Including some upper middle class people(if you think hospitals can't make millions of dollars vanish overnight you are wrong) who you claim to want to protect homeless people from.



I see the people serving corporations and hurting people as the victimizers. Acting like they are "just making an honest living" when they are anything but honest. Wheres the pressure to change their behavior and stop negatively effecting everyone around them. Wheres this pressure on lobbysits? Wheres this pressure on bankers? Wheres this pressure on landlords? Wheres this pressure on developers? Wheres this pressure on insert example here?

I don't consider laws that contradict my values to be legitimate. I find following the law because its the law because its the law deeply problematic(I am German). Its even worse then you just hating the homeless for being homeless at least then it's your actual beliefs fucked up as they may be they are your beliefs. But dictating your morality based on the law implies you'll follow the law anywhere because its the law.

 

[Madmick]

Yes they chose to not live their life under conditions they felt were unacceptable. While their stories and circumstances may differ thats the one common thread. You feel it is their obligation to do what you want them to do and if they don't they should be punished with violence. In a country that is supposedly "free" and can't stop fawning over itself bragging about how free it is.

Also most people in this country are 2-3 capitalist decisions and/or acts of god away from joining one of those camps. Including some upper middle class people(if you think hospitals can't make millions of dollars vanish overnight you are wrong) who you claim to want to protect homeless people from.

I see the people serving corporations and hurting people as the victimizers. Acting like they are "just making an honest living" when they are anything but honest. Wheres the pressure to change their behavior and stop negatively effecting everyone around them. Wheres this pressure on lobbysits? Wheres this pressure on bankers? Wheres this pressure on landlords? Wheres this pressure on developers? Wheres this pressure on insert example here?

I don't consider laws that contradict my values to be legitimate. I find following the law because its the law because its the law deeply problematic(I am German). Its even worse then you just hating the homeless for being homeless at least then it's your actual beliefs fucked up as they may be they are your beliefs. But dictating your morality based on the law implies you'll follow the law anywhere because its the law.

No, I feel it is the government's obligation to address a public nuisance. Spare me the emotional regurgitation about 'muh Capitalism'.

 

[panamaican]

I try to wrap my mind around the legal argument that would make sleeping outside on public property is a fineable offense. Ignore how one feels about the homeless person or whatever. What is the legal argument?

Trespass? On public property, that would require that they have a curfew or they close the public property at a certain time.

Loitering? Again, same situation.

So, what do you do with the homeless who are sleeping during the day? If you close public property during the day, it affects everyone. And you can't simply target the homeless because they're still citizens and have a right to due process. Targeting them simply for not owning real property or spending money on renting someone else's property would be a legal problem.

I think there's more leeway for removing those homeless who demonstrate mental health problems to a facility to care for them but those facilities seem few and far between these days.

 

[jk7707]

No, I feel it is the government's obligation to address a public nuisance. Spare me the emotional regurgitation about 'muh Capitalism'.

How does that address the problem though? So they are removed from the park. Then what?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

You clearly have this warped notion they are helpless, or just down on their luck. They are not. Almost anyone familiar with them learns that, for the overwhelming majority of them, their lifestyle is a result of their choices, choices they continue to repeat every day, not an unfortunate conclusion of events or conditions outside their control.

This is what it all comes back to. Lefties want to believe it's bad luck but really it's bad choices 90% of the time.

If you ro end up homeless just as a result of bad luck, you get out of that situation pretty quickly.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

I try to wrap my mind around the legal argument that would make sleeping outside on public property is a fineable offense. Ignore how one feels about the homeless person or whatever. What is the legal argument?

Trespass? On public property, that would require that they have a curfew or they close the public property at a certain time.

Most parks close at night for that exact reason.

 

[burningspear]

they tried this bullshit over here, comical

 

[ferrisjso]

This is what it all comes back to. Lefties want to believe it's bad luck but really it's bad choices 90% of the time.

If you ro end up homeless just as a result of bad luck, you get out of that situation pretty quickly.

Good and bad choices depend on your circumstances, values and prioritys. Rightys want to live a fundamentally different life than leftys do. If they didn't disagree we wouldn't have different political ideologys. So we don't agree on what constitutes a "bad choice". Rightys see everyone as an entrepenuer and sees failure to invest, start a business or provide unique value to a business as iresponsible and deserving of punishment. You find all other forms of human selfishness to be deeply ilogical.

 

[Madmick]

How does that address the problem though? So they are removed from the park. Then what?

It gives them a record. You're building the grounds to remove them at will, or potentially hold them in jail. The idea is to invade their space, disrupt their constant drug use. Perhaps they will also gain the grounds to seize tents, bags, or other items as illegal property for destruction. Ultimately, as it mentioned in the article, without a coordinated effort by wealthier larger governments, as with the Feds or the State, these small local governments are doomed to the strategy as named in the article. "Make it uncomfortable" enough that the homeless choose to move down the road.

If suddenly these homeless find that there is nowhere which tolerates them to live as they have...well, perhaps they will change their behavior. That is the only real solution.

 

[panamaican]

Most parks close at night for that exact reason.

Yeah but I'm thinking the problem is bigger than that. Some cities have public seating areas near museums or places like that. Urban greenspace is where you're going to have the biggest issue. Places where people regularly walk on their way from one place to another place, usually beautified with benches and grass or trees.

A homed people might stop and read a book or have a cup of coffee then accidentally doze off...do we want that to technically be a crime?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Good and bad choices depend on your circumstances, values and prioritys. Rightys want to live a fundamentally different life than leftys do. If they didn't disagree we wouldn't have different political ideologys. So we don't agree on what constitutes a "bad choice". Rightys see everyone as an entrepenuer and sees failure to invest, start a business or provide unique value to a business as iresponsible and deserving of punishment.

We're talking about the choice to use hard drugs not the choice to not start a business.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

A homed people might stop and read a book or have a cup of coffee then accidentally doze off...do we want that to technically be a crime?

This is absurd even for you.

 

[ferrisjso]

We're talking about the choice to use hard drugs not the choice to not start a business.

This isn't about no hard drugs. If it really was about that we could probably all come to some sort of agreement on this topic.

 

[ferrisjso]

This is absurd even for you.

This is called loitering. Its not the same thing as homelessness. But its a similar dynamic and anti homeless restrictions and anti loitering restrictions are often linked. Someone is hanging around without a place to be. The fact person has a home doesn't change that it raises suspicion makes people uncomftorable etc etc. People being unable to loiter creates an environment people don't feel safe and secure in. The very thing that people raging against the homeless swear and up and down they want.

 

[avenue94]

We already have and have always had laws for vagrancy.

Which the Supreme Court has usually shown doubt about. It's pretty hard to write a a constitutional anti-vagrancy law like the kind in the OP. The city is asking to take a big L and lose a lot of money from that kind of litigation.

How does that address the problem though? So they are removed from the park. Then what?

I'm gonna guess it rhymes with SCHMIBY. It's another town's problem at that point.

This is absurd even for you.

How would that not be illegal if the law is written to ban sleeping in a park? Is there supposed to be a time limit in that law that says it's only illegal if you sleep for more than an hour at a time?

 

[Limeade]

“That was taken away from us when the campers started using the parks,” he said.

A homeless man taking a bath in the park lake.

Still, Spurgeon said his own brother died while homeless in a nearby city, and his son is living in the parks as he struggles with addiction. Once, he said, he realized with shock that the homeless person covered with blankets that he stepped past to enter a grocery store was his son.

“I miss my son every night, and I hold my breath that he won’t OD in the park,” Spurgeon said.

A used needle is seen next to orange syringe caps on the ground on Friday, March 22, 2024, in Baker Park in Grants Pass, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

Mayor Bristol and advocates have sought to open a shelter with fewer rules, or a designated area for homeless people to camp. But charged debates emerged over where that would be and who would pay for it.

While support for a designated campground appears to be growing, the problem remains: Many homeless people in Grants Pass have nowhere else to live. And some advocates fear a return of strict anti-camping enforcement will push people to the forest outside town, farther from help.

A homeless man saving a park watcher!

Even if the Supreme Court overturns the 9th Circuit’s decisions, Bristol said, “we still have 200 people who have to go somewhere.”

“We have to accept that homelessness is a reality in America,” she said.

This broken heart has turned to stone
Go hang your glory on the wall
There comes a time when castles fall
And all that's left is shifting in the sand

You're out of time, you're out of place
Look at your face
That's the measure of a man
This coat that fits you like a glove

These dirty streets you learned to love
So welcome back my long lost friend
You've been to hell and back again
God alone knows how you crossed that span

Back on the beat, back to the start
Trust in your heart
That's the measure of a man
It's the fire in the eyes, the lines on the hand
It's the things you understand

Permanent ties from which you once ran
That's the measure of a man
You've come full circle, now you're home
Without the gold, without the chrome

And this is where you've always been
You had to lose so you could win
And rise above your troubles while you can
Now you can love, now you can lose
Now you can choose
That's the measure of a man



https://apnews.com/article/grants-p...-encampments-a8dcddb518bd76b11d409666c06701b8

Thanks I wanted to post about the Grant's Pass case but got sidetracked with life. I will respond I the future but thanks for starting the discussion

 

[ferrisjso]

We already have and have always had laws for vagrancy.

In the US under common law you are allowed to make unconstitutional laws until someone affirmatively goes to court and gets it struck down. This is how all corporate laws work they can break them until someone with standing goes to court and puts in the effort to stop them. One of the many reasons the US legal system is primitive.

Only laws for the poor are enforced by law enforcement. Laws for the rich and powerful require a song and dance to get anyone to care.

 

[Loiosh]

This is absurd even for you.

It is, but not for any reason you likely think.

It's absurd because they want the law in place so they can selectively enforce it, just like "don't say gay". I wouldn't get arrested for falling asleep on a bench just like a heterosexual wouldn't get fired for talking about his or her spouse.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

How would that not be illegal if the law is written to ban sleeping in a park? Is there supposed to be a time limit in that law that says it's only illegal if you sleep for more than an hour at a time?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be, I'm saying that it isn't a good argument for keeping the parks overrun with homeless people.