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

[LeonardoBjj]

Their perspective seems to be that the homeless should be converted or be punished. They also made this cute little advertisement:

- Because that is what Jesus would do.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

The government wastes billions of our dollars per year. And they can't find some money to build some open aired structures with some bathrooms so the homeless can crash at night and not get rained on?

- We have that here. You guys dont have that in USA?

Homeless people are still living creatures, that have the same righ to exist as me and my cats. They're free to go, as i am also.

I get that when they disrespect the law, they should be jailed like everyone else. But existing isnt a crime. I usually dont handle what the agressive criminals, the marjority here are calm people. And the drugs that you guys have in USA, for some reason doesnt make the round there.

The goverment allows that to happen, because they make money from that. and as @Sinister posted, since i am a CT lover, i think the fake Christians have something to do with that.

I know several Christians here, and they're arent holding someone for bettering themselves, they're usually the people that more help here. Jesus wasnt the cruel and vingative guy in the bible!

 

[Helden]

"discourage homelessness" is probably one of the most brain-dead takes I've ever seen posted on here, further giving evidence that the right might actually just be evil, pure and simple.

Homelessness is not some bad habit you can "discourage" like smoking.

 

[Misfit23]

"discourage homelessness" is probably one of the most brain-dead takes I've ever seen posted on here, further giving evidence that the right might actually just be evil, pure and simple.

Homelessness is not some bad habit you can "discourage" like smoking.

You'll be surprised by the amount of nimbyism here in Portland. Lot of people have lost patience. I'm guilty of it too.

 

[Sinister]

"discourage homelessness" is probably one of the most brain-dead takes I've ever seen posted on here, further giving evidence that the right might actually just be evil, pure and simple.

Homelessness is not some bad habit you can "discourage" like smoking.

Bruh, you know homelessness is whack right? I mean why do whack sh*t? Just dont do it, man. It's not fun at all, just...dont

 

[Limbo Pete]

Bruh, you know homelessness is whack right? I mean why do whack sh*t? Just dont do it, man. It's not fun at all, just...dont

You know, this also makes even less sense, and is even more troubling, when you take the base idea itself and push it to the hypothetical letter of the law. So let's say it's now illegal to sleep outside, full stop. Does that mean I can't take a nap sitting on a park bench on a nice day? Well, yes, I suppose. Would the cops be fining me for this? I'm guessing no, because I don't look "homeless" enough. so you have a nebulous idea that is impossible to enforce strictly (because it makes no sense) but would absolutely be enforced arbitrarily to target different demographics based on qualities outside the judgement of the law. And on top of all that, if it is specifically the sleeping part that is illegal... then you have to prove that the people you are fining were even asleep in the first place, right? So fucking stupid.

 

[Sinister]

You know, this also makes even less sense, and is even more troubling, when you take the base idea itself and push it to the hypothetical letter of the law. So let's say it's now illegal to sleep outside, full stop. Does that mean I can't take a nap sitting on a park bench on a nice day? Well, yes, I suppose. Would the cops be fining me for this? I'm guessing no, because I don't look "homeless" enough. so you have a nebulous idea that is impossible to enforce strictly (because it makes no sense) but would absolutely be enforced arbitrarily to target different demographics based on qualities outside the judgement of the law. And on top of all that, if it is specifically the sleeping part that is illegal... then you have to prove that the people you are fining were even asleep in the first place, right? So fucking stupid.

This was the line of questioning of Sotomayor that I posted earlier. People who fall asleep on the beach, fine and jail! People who fall asleep in a park on a nice day, fine and jail!! Anyone camping in non-designated wilderness, fine and jail!!

 

[Misfit23]

This was the line of questioning of Sotomayor that I posted earlier. People who fall asleep on the beach, fine and jail! People who fall asleep in a park on a nice day, fine and jail!! Anyone camping in non-designated wilderness, fine and jail!!

I mean when they're doing considerable damage to the local ecosystems then I'm all for throwing them in jail.

Natural sites in East Portland hardest hit by homeless camps

The natural areas most impacted by homeless encampments are wetlands, forests and floodplains in north and east Portland.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Seano]

"discourage homelessness" is probably one of the most brain-dead takes I've ever seen posted on here, further giving evidence that the right might actually just be evil, pure and simple.

Homelessness is not some bad habit you can "discourage" like smoking.

I don't think anyone said its a bad habit, aside from you suggesting people did.

Its a lot of things. A public health and safety concern. What do you want to do? Keep looking the other way on mental health and addiction? Make a video of you buying them a sweatshirt and put it on youtube to feel magnanimous?

I mean, aside from talking down to people from your pedestal, what do you suggest? I'm not seeing that you're part of any solution here, enlighten us all. What do we do? Try to answer without pretending to just be above it all.

 

[Helden]

Bruh, you know homelessness is whack right? I mean why do whack sh*t? Just dont do it, man. It's not fun at all, just...dont

Maybe you should try not being homeless? I know society is "encouraging" this destructive lifestyle, but if you just pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and got yourself a home, we wouldn't have to resort to murdering you for this crime

 

[Helden]

I don't think anyone said its a bad habit, aside from you suggesting people did.

Its a lot of things. A public health and safety concern. What do you want to do? Keep looking the other way on mental health and addiction? Make a video of you buying them a sweatshirt and put it on youtube to feel magnanimous?

I mean, aside from talking down to people from your pedestal, what do you suggest? I'm not seeing that you're part of any solution here, enlighten us all. What do we do? Try to answer without pretending to just be above it all.

My solutions all include funding allocation that you'd dismiss as marxist socialist globalist communism or whatever the fuck...

But you were the one who suggested we should be "discouraging" homelessness, like it's some bad habit or lifestyle choice, not me buddy

 

[Sinister]

I mean when they're doing considerable damage to the local ecosystems then I'm all for throwing them in jail.

Natural sites in East Portland hardest hit by homeless camps

The natural areas most impacted by homeless encampments are wetlands, forests and floodplains in north and east Portland.

www.oregonlive.com

Which is why I'd much rather house them and minimize the area they're most likely to cause any damage in. Once you jail them you're paying to house the anyway, just with a bunch of other bureaucracy you have to pay for as well before it gets to that point.

 

[Cartiac]

- We have that here. You guys dont have that in USA?

Homeless people are still living creatures, that have the same righ to exist as me and my cats. They're free to go, as i am also.

I get that when they disrespect the law, they should be jailed like everyone else. But existing isnt a crime. I usually dont handle what the agressive criminals, the marjority here are calm people. And the drugs that you guys have in USA, for some reason doesnt make the round there.

The goverment allows that to happen, because they make money from that. and as @Sinister posted, since i am a CT lover, i think the fake Christians have something to do with that.

I know several Christians here, and they're arent holding someone for bettering themselves, they're usually the people that more help here. Jesus wasnt the cruel and vingative guy in the bible!

Yes we do at insane cost, we even put them up in Venice Beach ocean front hotel rooms, but they don't want that because it is wrong to ask them to follow basic, human standard rules in exchange for free food and housing in extremely high value areas.

I have a home in LA very close to Venice/Sepulveda Blvd that used to be one of the largest homeless encampments in the city and have been forced to deal with this issue real life, face to face with homeless guys living in my driveway. It is definitely a difficult issue because these are people, but you also have to be very aware that there are very bad people, homeless or not and giving them an inch could very well lead to them trying to take a mile.

The OP and pretty much every source you will find, other than www.supremecourt.gov/, as usual completely misrepresents what this case is about. Even Newsom is against the 9th Circuit Clown Court on this, it is disgraceful we again have to waste the Supreme Court's time overturning yet another insane ruling from these delusional morons.

 

[Seano]

My solutions all include funding allocation that you'd dismiss as marxist socialist globalist communism or whatever the fuck...

But you were the one who suggested we should be "discouraging" homelessness, like it's some bad habit or lifestyle choice, not me buddy

Yeah, I don't feel the taxpayer should house the homeless. I'm ok with getting them something temporary, while they clean themselves up and get a job, I guess. The goal should be to help them function normally in society, not do everything for them on the taxpayer dime.
6 months of temporary housing, rehab if necessary, mental health therapy for the rest.If they can't make it after that, maybe they need to be institutionalized. They are a danger to themselves and society and if they can't function in society, they shouldn't be there. Period.
All we do is make being homeless more comfortable. Its ridiculous.

 

[avenue94]

The OP and pretty much every source you will find, other than www.supremecourt.gov/, as usual completely misrepresents what this case is about. Even Newsom is against the 9th Circuit Clown Court on this, it is disgraceful we again have to waste the Supreme Court's time overturning yet another insane ruling from these delusional morons.

What is this case about and how does it intersect with the Constitution in your mind? The legal issues are pretty apparent and long recognized.

6 months of temporary housing, rehab if necessary, mental health therapy for the rest.If they can't make it after that, maybe they need to be institutionalized. They are a danger to themselves and society and if they can't function in society, they shouldn't be there. Period.
All we do is make being homeless more comfortable. Its ridiculous.

How are making the homeless more comfortable if the very measures you think should be the baseline aren't even close to being achieved?

 

[fedorthegoat777]

- We have that here. You guys dont have that in USA?

Homeless people are still living creatures, that have the same righ to exist as me and my cats. They're free to go, as i am also.

I get that when they disrespect the law, they should be jailed like everyone else. But existing isnt a crime. I usually dont handle what the agressive criminals, the marjority here are calm people. And the drugs that you guys have in USA, for some reason doesnt make the round there.

The goverment allows that to happen, because they make money from that. and as @Sinister posted, since i am a CT lover, i think the fake Christians have something to do with that.

I know several Christians here, and they're arent holding someone for bettering themselves, they're usually the people that more help here. Jesus wasnt the cruel and vingative guy in the bible!

Here in America, homeless people are essentially treated as 3/4 of a person by some. They remove benches they can sleep on, pay money to install anti homeless devices in areas where they like to sleep, and are now trying to fine them in some areas. It is sad. Some people make fun of or mock them.

As far as the Jesus comment, helping the poor people is one of the main commands of Jesus. A main point of Christianity. But like it is in your country, some people follow this and some don't.

 

[Cartiac]

What is this case about and how does it intersect with the Constitution in your mind? The legal issues are pretty apparent and long recognized.

The case is about preserving the ability for state and local governments to keep public land for public use and being able to maintain a reasonable level of safety for everyone around those areas.

Nothing illustrates this point more than this picture below I learned of a couple days ago showing the natural escalation from pillows and blankets, to tents to homes by the freeway, to your front yard, to your house. The government has to maintain the ability to enforce land and property rights.

 

[avenue94]

The case is about preserving the ability for state and local governments to keep public land for public use and being able to maintain a reasonable level of safety for everyone around those areas.

Nothing illustrates this point more than this picture below I learned of a couple days ago showing the natural escalation from pillows and blankets, to tents to homes by the freeway, to your front yard, to your house. The government has to maintain the ability to enforce land and property rights.

Right, but the property rights argument isn't particularly compelling if we're talking a ban on a sleeping at the park. That would pretty clearly be a 14th Amendment violation that would effectively be unenforceable.

If there was enough shelter capacity to go around, you'd have a leg to stand on. But there isn't, and until there is, letting people sleep in public is pretty much the least bad option.

I'll also add what I mentioned in the thread earlier, there is no originality or historical argument for banning sleeping or even camping on public lands, within reason. Not that that's really stopped the Supreme Court from making up an originalist justification for a preconceived end.

 

[Cartiac]

Right, but the property rights argument isn't particularly compelling if we're talking a ban on a sleeping at the park. That would pretty clearly be a 14th Amendment violation that would effectively be unenforceable.

If there was enough shelter capacity to go around, you'd have a leg to stand on. But there isn't, and until there is, letting people sleep in public is pretty much the least bad option.

I'll also add what I mentioned in the thread earlier, there is no originality or historical argument for banning sleeping or even camping on public lands, within reason. Not that that's really stopped the Supreme Court from making up an originalist justification for a preconceived end.

For fucks sake, I just explained it has nothing to do with sleeping in the park. I'm not going to continue trying to have a conversation with a Parrot, no matter what I say I know what the response is going to be.

"The question presented is does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute“cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by theEighth Amendment?"

Nothing to do with sleeping in a park man, stop reading media BS, seek out the actual source documents and think for yourself.

 

[avenue94]

For fucks sake, I just explained it has nothing to do with sleeping in the park. I'm not going to continue trying to have a conversation with a Parrot, no matter what I say I know what the response is going to be.

"The question presented is does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute“cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by theEighth Amendment?"

Nothing to do with sleeping in a park man, stop reading media BS, seek out the actual source documents and think for yourself.

The law that led to this case in the Supreme Court band sleeping in public parks or having a blanket in public parks. The ordinance explicitly defines camping as having bedding materials, it's not limited to having a tent or some other shelter.

It seems like you yourself are falling for media spin and didn't actually read the relevant sources.