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

panamaican said:
It's also a disingenuous punishment. Financial penalties for the homeless means a penalty that we know they can't meet. Thus opening them up for more severe punishment as a result of not meeting the first punishment.

It's like penalizing people with no legs by demanding that they walk 2 miles. They can't perform the punishment and that's why it's the punishment. It serves no purpose except as a justification to say "Well, they didn't walk the 2 miles so now we can confiscate their house." When confiscating the house was always the desire, they just lacked the integrity to stop themselves from this roundabout injustice.

The desire is to punish the homeless for being homeless but they can't bring themselves to say that.
Click to expand...
So poor people should be above the law because they can't pay fines?
 
DoctorTaco said:
Careful with this- it’ll give the neocons the idea to bring back work camps and indentured servitude
Click to expand...
Yeah, better to just leave the homeless in the ditch and ignore their mental and physical health. Take that conservatives!

See, you people aren't on the side of the homeless at all. You're just contrary.
 
panamaican said:
Sleeping outside isn't committing a crime. If the concern is theft, trespass, harassment, it's dumb because those are already crimes and the homeless can be prosecuted under those.

Not having a job isn't a crime -- when people with money do it, we call them the idle rich. Sleeping outside isn't a crime -- when people with means do it, we call it camping or, at worst, living off the grid.

I guess you're going to have to tell what the specific crime is for homeless people that isn't already a crime for people with homes and jobs.
Click to expand...

Yeah because people with the means to go camping usually go camp on the sidewalk on MLK Jr Blvd. They also up and leave all their trash right there on the sidewalk for someone else to clean up. At least make some honest comparisons here.

A huge percentage of homeless people are addicted to drugs and have no job. They acquire drugs by pan handling, recycling and theft. Drugs are expensive and they commit a hell of a lot of theft in order to get their fix.

If homeless people had a section off to the side where they could put up their tents and all they did was go around pan handling and collecting cans without leaving their trash all over the place, most people really wouldn't give a shit. But that's not really how they operate in the real world.
 
RoastBeast said:
Yeah because people with the means to go camping usually go camp on the sidewalk on MLK Jr Blvd. They also up and leave all their trash right there on the sidewalk for someone else to clean up. At least make some honest comparisons here.

A huge percentage of homeless people are addicted to drugs and have no job. They acquire drugs by pan handling, recycling and theft. Drugs are expensive and they commit a hell of a lot of theft in order to get their fix.

If homeless people had a section off to the side where they could put up their tents and all they did was go around pan handling and collecting cans without leaving their trash all over the place, most people really wouldn't give a shit. But that's not really how they operate in the real world.
Click to expand...
Interesting, a complete failure to describe something that isn't already a crime for everyone. Trespass, littering, theft, etc.

Why bother responding to me if you're not willing to actually understand the posts themselves?
I guess you're going to have to tell what the specific crime is for homeless people that isn't already a crime for people with homes and jobs.
Click to expand...

Trespass, littering, theft, etc. I hate to break this to you but those are already crimes with existing punishments.
 
I'm willing to bet this is done by Christians showing their Christian love just like their hero Jesus did it.
Kicking down like true Christians.
 
panamaican said:
Interesting, a complete failure to describe something that isn't already a crime for everyone. Trespass, littering, theft, etc.

Why bother responding to me if you're not willing to actually understand the posts themselves?


Trespass, littering, theft, etc. I hate to break this to you but those are already crimes with existing punishments.
Click to expand...

What point are you looking to make then?
 
panamaican said:
??? That doesn't remotely resemble what I said. So, I'll assume you meant to quote someone else.
Click to expand...
You said "its a disingenuous punishment" because of their inability to pay the fine. Not sure what you meant there I guess. Seems clear to me but perhaps its in some sort of code.
 
Seano said:
You said "its a disingenuous punishment" because of their inability to pay the fine. Not sure what you meant there I guess. Seems clear to me but perhaps its in some sort of code.
Click to expand...
Why double down on a blatant inability to read? You're struggling to distinguish between "poor people" (your term) and "homeless" (my term). They're not interchangeable terms. I would think that someone of your age would know that. But since it's not clear to you, I've obviously given you too much credit.

And you're incapable of understanding the difference between a punishment that is impossible to meet for the targeted audience vs. "being above the law". Here's a simple task (well, simple for most) -- show me where I said that homeless people should be "above the law".

While I wait, please don't waste my time with more "So what you're saying is..." fan faction.
 
panamaican said:
Why double down on a blatant inability to read? You're struggling to distinguish between "poor people" (your term) and "homeless" (my term). They're not interchangeable terms. I would think that someone of your age would know that. But since it's not clear to you, I've obviously given you too much credit.

And you're incapable of understanding the difference between a punishment that is impossible to meet for the targeted audience vs. "being above the law". Here's a simple task (well, simple for most) -- show me where I said that homeless people should be "above the law".

While I wait, please don't waste my time with more "So what you're saying is..." fan faction.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see , this is where you pretend to not understand what I was asking because of a slight semantic difference in our wording. Homeless people are poor. Poor people also suffer from an inability to pay for things, thats what being poor is. Seems to me you're saying a law is ridiculous if the people who conflict with that law also lack the ability to pay, or in other words, are poor. I'm not really convinced it was necessary for me to spell this out for you.

I'm not sure you really understand the intent of a law and what fines are for. They're not dependent on economic or social status.
 
Seano said:
Oh, I see , this is where you pretend to not understand what I was asking because of a slight semantic difference in our wording. Homeless people are poor. Poor people also suffer from an inability to pay for things, thats what being poor is. Seems to me you're saying a law is ridiculous if the people who conflict with that law also lack the ability to pay, or in other words, are poor. I'm not really convinced it was necessary for me to spell this out for you.

I'm not sure you really understand the intent of a law and what fines are for. They're not dependent on economic or social status.
Click to expand...
No, I wrote specific things. You wrote bullshit that you're now claiming is the same thing. Poor people and homeless are not the same thing. That you struggle with understanding why something that is unreasonable for the homeless is not the same thing as unreasonable for the poor just tells me that you can't reason though something as simples as "poor" =/= "homeless". Their entire life circumstances are extremely, and obviously, different.

Homeless people are not just low wealth. They are literally homeless. Poor people are still homed, they have an address. How does a person who does not have a home receive notification about how to challenge or appeal a financial penalty when there is no way to contact them...since they don't have a fucking home.

You think someone gets a fine and just pays the cop at that moment in time? Have you ever seen that in real life? Did you ever pay a speeding ticket when you were pulled over - just handed the cop your credit card and he charged the fine? How moronic.

How does a homeless person get the financial tools to pay the fine? Do they walk down to the random payment address (which may be miles from where they were ticketed) and swipe the debit/credit card that they don't have? How do they get envelopes and stamps to mail the fine in? What the fuck do they put as the return address? If there is an issue with the fine, how does anyone communicate with them to address it?

JFC. Every time I think you can't be any less dense, you go and exceed expectations.

Anecdote time: I have a client who received a fine for breaking a traffic rule. He doesn't speak English. He misunderstood something about the fine (which he paid) and the court mailed him documents requiring him to show up in court or go to jail. The fine was in English, the documents that he had to understand so he could go to court and avoid steeper penalties were also in English. But more relevantly -- they were mailed to his fucking house. <<< how does that work with the homeless?

Financial penalties are pretty much impossible for homeless people to follow through on. Compared to incarceration where the homeless is held in a static location from which they are transported to their hearings and thus can receive notices about what's happening to them legally.
 
RoastBeast said:
We've also heard it argued around here that men can get pregnant and breast feed babies.

We all use our own eyes and see what homeless people look and act like. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to be able to tell what a drug addict looks like. Yet the bleeding hearts here want to make everyone believe that the vast majority of these people are just good people who are down on their luck that either lost their jobs or got oppressed by a right wing something or other.
Click to expand...
Been homeless a few times, and yes, the majority are definitely not just down on their luck. Many are addicted, and many also just do not want to work, or live by societal norms. They will talk a good game, about wanting to do something else with their life, but when you tell them how to achieve the desired results, they will not do it. Seems most people who think otherwise simply have not been in the trenches themselves.

That said, I still sympathize with them, as I was there too. Something different needs to happen, because what we do now is not working, and making them pay fines will not fix shit.
 
panamaican said:
Sleeping outside isn't committing a crime. If the concern is theft, trespass, harassment, it's dumb because those are already crimes and the homeless can be prosecuted under those.

Not having a job isn't a crime -- when people with money do it, we call them the idle rich. Sleeping outside isn't a crime -- when people with means do it, we call it camping or, at worst, living off the grid.

I guess you're going to have to tell what the specific crime is for homeless people that isn't already a crime for people with homes and jobs.
Click to expand...
What about vagrancy laws?
 
avenue94 said:
Most vagrancy laws would be tossed out by courts if challenged. That's partly why they are not enforced very vigorously.
Click to expand...
Loitering laws is another one that would apply to sleeping in public. Why would they be tossed out if challenged?
 
Mr Holmes said:
What about vagrancy laws?
Click to expand...
Vagrancy laws have to very narrowly written or they are unconstitutional. This is for the reason that we're having this conversation at all -- penalizing people because they are extremely poor violates some basic tenets of human decency.

Penalize them for crimes? That's fine. But don't penalize them because they're homeless and have the indecency to continue being alive where we can see them.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Loitering laws is another one that would apply to sleeping in public. Why would they be tossed out if challenged?
Click to expand...
What's the definition of loitering in your mind? Or to put it more concretely, how does a law distinguish between someone loitering on the side walk for 2 hours and me standing on the sidewalk for 2 hours because I like the view?

A basic rule of thumb with laws like this is a person has to be able to easily tell if they are violating it or not. And that's not usually possible with loitering and vagrancy laws. Not to mention the 1A angle is glaring with any of these measures.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Loitering laws is another one that would apply to sleeping in public. Why would they be tossed out if challenged?
Click to expand...
Because they're too vague to be enforced fairly. For a criminal law to survive most challenges about vagueness, the average citizen has to be able to describe exactly what behavior is forbidden and what is allowed.

Let's take sleeping outdoors. Would the law apply to people who doze off in the middle of the afternoon while sitting out in the sun with their significant other? Or loitering -- what exactly converts a person who is just hanging out people watching into a loiterer?

Vagrancy and loitering laws get tossed because to write them broadly enough to let the cops target homeless people means writing them broadly enough to apply to lots of people who aren't doing anything different from the homeless...they're just better dressed and better behaved while doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,418
Messages
55,557,853
Members
174,819
Latest member
blunttruth

Share this page

Back
Top