- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
What few constitutional rights the homeless enjoy may soon be on the line at the high court.
You must log in or register to comment.
Yes.
this country is so fucking stupid and evil
i like how thomas still gets to decide [and you know what he’ll say]
Tread carefully SC. lots of us are on that fence with very little to lose should we become homeless. I can lose my house, but I’ll never lose the memory of how you fuckers sold us out to your donors.
Going to go against the grain here, probably not. The case hasn’t even been granted cert yet. They probably won’t take up the case.
“Why? 'Cuz fuck 'em, that’s why” -Supreme Court
Yes, probably.
Next clickbait headline…?
They won’t differ, they simply make life as bad as possible for everyone.
Not even gonna read the article. Yes, they will
Based on past decisions I’m gonna say yes
Man you know what’s not hard? Empathy. You know what is hard? Constantly finding ways to make life for others difficult.
Literally just build some free housing that won’t kick people out after extended periods of time, give them social support for jobs, give them mental health support, and feed them. If they don’t want to live there because of mental health issues, they should still have access to the other amenities and eventually they might move in. And blam, you will have a much better city with less crime and a happier population. Oh and it’s cheaper then funding death and destruction
Last detail: Proper funding for extra policing, to handle the natural difficulties in transitioning a whole bunch of people to a more structured lifestyle all at once, in the same small geographical area.
Otherwise we’ll run into the same problems we did last time we tried block housing, leading to “the projects”. I mean, think about it. That’s a fantastic market for a drug dealer or a gang otherwise, that many vulnerable people all in one place.
Extra policing was part of the problem that led to the gangs. Extra policing targeted at an outgroup means every issue big or small is met with violence and imprisonment. The paternalistic overuse of the criminal justice system leads to the people losing trust in police and in the system. They still need someone to provide community structure, to settle disputes, and to offer some degree of protection and gangs are the homegrown solution to fulfilling that need. Extra social workers and community organizers that are from that community would do a lot better than extra police.
People don’t invite gangs to fill a need. Nor do they have the power to resist gangs when they want to take over. They fill a power vacuum. So, rather than eliminate the need for power to exist, you can also just prevent the vacuum. It’s much more feasible.
But either approach. So long as gangs and drugs are successfully kept away, that is the important part. At least keep the dealers out of the buildings when they try to worm their way in.
Gangs don’t need an invitation; they need members, and people do join gangs to fill a need.
True. But once established they become an organism of sorts. It can move, find new prey, etc. It can create the misery it needs to have an environment it thrives in.
It’s a chicken or egg problem, and the answer is unfortunately irrelevant. Now that they exist as independent powers, they no longer need anything to cause them, exterior of themselves. They become self-sufficient.
Not policing, extra services from non-violent professionals that know how to address issues with homelessness in a way that does not involve tasers and physical assault.
Extra policing would be fine if the problems with police departments were addressed. Without addressing that whole mess, though, throwing more police officers won’t solve that problem.
Very true and these police should be trained and continually educated on how to deal with and identify mental health episodes. A lot of people hate police as do I, but I truly believe with proper oversight and education they can be a great asset to our society.
I love how the original idea for police was “Wow, we should really have some form of enforcing the law that isn’t dependent on local prejudices or just government men trained only to shoot people”, and now it’s… well…
Whose original idea for police? Sounds like maybe you’re alluding to Robert Peel. But as far as I know, the intellectual heritage of American police is more of an extension of runaway slave patrols.
Peel. I could get into a broader argument about the institutional origins of American police, but I think it suffices to say that American police were, at least in terms of becoming formalized structures, influenced by British (and French) policing ideals of the early-mid-19th century.
In that sense, they’ve certainly not lived up to the purported ideals.
the original idea was to make the KKK be on the state payroll
Or just rely more on social workers who actually have that education. And less on people with guns who have a history of authoritarian abuses and state sanctioned violence that can be triggering, especially for people with mental illness.
Why not have both be trained? Doesn’t hurt I feel
If they don’t want to live there
This is the tricky part. Any realistic solution can’t just gloss over it.
Empathy is apparently nigh impossible for a lot of people, judging by how rarely they engage in it. I think you know which people I’m talking about.
I think you know which people I’m talking about.
People who have money and have never had anything actually bad happen to them?
Those people, and also the people who are obsessed with having someone to look down on.
I’ve never understood that mindset, because it doesn’t actually make them better, it just means that they’re aholes.
What to they need the 8th Amendment for? Can’t they use the 1st Amendment? All the homeless can move right in front of the government buildings, make a couple signs, and exercise “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The grievance being the policies or lack of resources that led to the situation in the first place.
Problems are harder to ignore when they have to look at it every day on the way into work.
They’ll be moved by force if it gets large enough. Homeless people reaching critical mass is something cities actively “tackle” by loading them onto buses and sending them elsewhere.
Because nuance is hard to come by. . .
No, the constitutional rights will not change. They will still have protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
The issue is the 9th circuit ruling is overly broad. I fully agree if somebody has nowhere to go, then penalizing them for existing is cruel and unusual. With the stipulations of the Boise shelters, that was certainly the case for the plaintiffs.
However stretching that to “unless there is a shelter bed for everybody, nobody can be penalized for declining a bed” is an illogical conclusion. The difference is individual versus population. If individual A has nowhere they can legally go, they cannot be punished. But that doesn’t mean individual B, who does have somewhere to go also cannot be punished.
Using the same logic as the 9th Circuit’s ruling, if the government cannot provide a foster home for every child, then we cannot enforce any child endangerment laws. Even if in the hypothetical some child may be able to be placed with a relative, they couldn’t be removed from the endangering situation. That’s illogical and this ruling needs narrowed in scope.
Edit: I also want to point out that even this post is probably too reductionist. So please add counterpoint, clarifications, etc. One compelling counterpoint I’ve heard is the difficulty of determining who would be unable to go somewhere. And truthfully I don’t have a good argument against it. However I have a hard time accepting when shelter beds have lower occupancy, why no enforcement is allowed.
The bottom line remains these are people, and many desperately need help, some against their will. We need more housing, more support systems, more everything really. But throwing our hands up and allowing the problem to remain unabated is no benefit to the individual nor the community as a whole.
deleted by creator
That seems to be the job of the Supreme Court for quite a few groups of people yes.
Let me just simplify the headline
Will the Supreme Court Make Life Worse for America?
The answer is yes, that’s basically all they do for 99.9% of Americans.
Will the Supreme Court make life worse for
Yes. Invariably so.
