Justices to consider constitutionality of punishing people for sleeping outside as western states seek to address encampments
A case that could significantly change how US cities respond to the growing homelessness crisis has reached the supreme court as record numbers of people in America find themselves without a permanent place to live.
The justices on Monday will consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
The case stems from a 2019 camping ban enacted by city officials in Grants Pass, Oregon, a small mountain town where rents are rising and there is just one overnight shelter for adults. Debra Blake, who had lost her job a decade earlier and was unhoused, was cited for illegal camping. After being convicted and fined, she soon joined other unhoused residents in suing the city over the ordinance.
I don’t have any faith in this Supreme Court to do the right thing. I am sure the facsiest and for profit prisons hope they vote their way.
We should revolt if they do. How do you make illegal to be homeless if our government and society won’t help them not be so?
Democrats should rally people against this but they won’t.
It would seem that doing the morally right thing here would have far reaching affects. However, I too, don’t see how we could consider homelessness a crime. That’s just too far. Those folks basically have nothing left to lose. Not a great combo if you want to keep the peace.
How do you make it illegal to sleep on your own planet (which is something every human must do)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBHouBDjqsc
Adventure Time actually explained it perfectly.
If they want to allow cities to make laws punishing people for sleeping in tents in undesignated areas, they need to provide adequate temporary housing at no cost, and with no prerequisites, like being sober.
Or even just free to use camp grounds. Just have a sweep done every couple weeks to do cleanup, not even just for drugs just because thatd be good for maintenance.
Free to use campgrounds would be fine as long as people are not allowed to stay longer than a certain period of time. They can move from different campground to campground and then back again, but it’s important that campgrounds don’t become permanent dwellings.
There are a lot of empty office buildings in my city. Perhaps they should be squatting on capitalism.
It be easier and cheaper and more profitable to just give these people places to live, social services and some education, and get them back to being working, tax-paying members of society.
Not that I think their value is only in their capability to produce, but that’s how politicians like it to be framed.
The thing to keep in mind is that the specific question being asked here is: can cities punish homeless people for existing outdoors if they haven’t provided somewhere for the homeless to go to? Grants Pass, OR and Co. say yes.
He asked what would happen in the city if the ordinances were to remain blocked.
“The city’s hands will be tied. It will be forced to surrender its public spaces, as it [already] has been,” Evangelis said.
This is the crux of it. The city does not consider the homeless to be the “public”. Can’t be homeless and a citizen at the same time apparently.
To make this clear, this is a about the government further destroying the entire concept of “public spaces”. Dividing further who counts as “the public”.
Maybe they should invest in proper shelters then if they don’t want them in the parks…
