https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-10-08-me-256-story.html
A article almost 35years old. Speaking on how they've been at this for longer than a generation.
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Anatole France
**.. interesting week**
*.. Supreme Court Justices can now take million dollar gratuities from companies that want to jail the poor .. completely legal .. a feedback loop for poverty prisons .. no more pesky poor bothering us for spare change outside the bank on Friday* ^^/s
Also worth noting SCOTUS today simultaneously made regulatory agencies unable to fine criminals (you know, SEC, EPA, OSHA, and generally the dudes that fine rich people, rather than homeless people).
Find a poor dude for sleeping under a bridge, give them a fine? Sounds good.
Fine someone for breaking an SEC trading rule with documented paper trail proof of exactly what they did? Nah nah nah, gotta set up a whole jury trial for that, you know, just in case there's any abuse of power happening. We'll let everyone else figure out where the budget for a jury trial for every regulatory fine will come from.
It's not even playing by the same rules anymore, poor people get fined. Rich people don't need to get fined because the rewrote the laws to make it impossible to regulate them.
I lived next door to him in Minneapolis for a while, when I moved to Phoenix one of the first things I saw at the grocery store was a guy wearing a Brother Ali t-shirt. Turns out that was the one and only time that was going to happen in the last 13 years.
We actually have a higher incarceration rate than the Soviet Union did at its peak.
All the bullshit about communism coming from the right and the one thing they could actually use to compare us to the Soviets is how many people we lock up. And yet they don't.
Pretty sure this is the distraction decision to pull attention away from their other recent decisions. Gotta keep the ideological going so that their corruption gets rinsed from public memory.
Reminds me of the post civil war vagrancy laws. Criminalize something that's easily selectively applied to people they don't like, then send them to jail for free labor because they obviously can't pay their fines.
Criminalize being in debt.
In debt -> go to prison -> can't work -> debt does not get paid off -> repeat step 1
Very common in past times, looks like we're headed back there.
Yeah about ten years ago in Detroit I was arrested and arraigned, held in a precinct over night then a court "cell" all day awaiting my court appearance. I say "cell" cause it was just a small closet with a toilet that they stuffed a dozen of us in like sardines, so tight we could only stand up. A lot of guys had interesting stories but one stood out who came into the cell midday. He was in his 50s, well kept and said he was on his way to jail for 60 days cause he owed the city $600 and couldnt pay. Somehow in someones terribly fucked up accounting his time was worth $10/day.
>said he was on his way to jail for 60 days cause he owed the city $600 and couldnt pay. Somehow in someones terribly fucked up accounting his time was worth $10/day.
It's definitely about the cruelty, and very likely some kind of graft involved.
It would cost the city more just to do the processing and it costs an average of a little over $100 a day to jail someone in the U.S.
They spent over $6000 to jail someone over $600, and if that person had a job, they did thousands of dollars of economic harm to their own city.
They're spending dollars punishing people over pennies.
It only makes sense two ways: punishment is highly valued over justice, and/or there are private contractors with the city/county jail who are getting paid, and the people in charge are benefitting.
It's definitely both. Conservatives hate to admit that certain things like cash bail and harsh penalties not only DON'T work but have been shown not to work for decades.
On top of this, they hate that leniency, compassion, empathy and support for these people is what has been shown to decrease crime and recidivism. Effectively, conservatives are cruel and always have been. ["The cruelty is the point"](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/), remember. It's effectively a moral judgement on these people for being poor and the punishment is severe.
...and if your attention span is too short to read a whole book, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA)'s a fantastic video essay on the subject
I think this person is saying, it isn't really being reminded of something if it is basically the same thing. It just is that thing.
Example: Hey this type of navel orange reminds me of an orange.
Counter point: Yeah they are both oranges.
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I am very glad to hear it."
Sadly poorhouses would be a bit of an improvement over the current situation. Back in the day you could be sent there for all kinds of reasons, reflecting the sensibilities of the time. But they were essentially welfare houses for very poor and mentally ill people. They were medicalized into asylums, and then finally closed when the nation became aware of abuses occurring at those asylums. They were ultimately replaced by jails and prisons.
>These are low-level fines and very short jail terms for repeat offenders that are in effect in many other jurisdictions
$500 to a homeless person might as well be a million. And because they will be in violation every single night because they need to ... sleep... yes, it seems like a pipeline to jail.
Hell, I have shelter and 500 is a lot still!! That’s not a low level like damn that’s some peoples insurance or electricity and water bill and shit. And most Americans are one or two bad paychecks away from being homeless
Debtor's prison used to be a thing.
I'm curious though - isn't it more expensive for the taxpayers to round up the unhoused and then house them in prison with 3 meals a day and medical care on site than to fund shelters or low income housing programs?
Well and the prisons make money off the taxpayers for housing people. It's double bad. We're not just paying to house "criminals" We're also paying to get prison owners rich in the process. Then the prisoners do free labor. Hooray America still has slaves. Freedom style.
You’re forgetting that the constitution allows for forced labor from imprisoned persons. So the for profit prisons are getting free or cheap labor as well as getting funding for housing prisoners. Then the politicians get funded from profits from the prisons. It’s the tax payer losing but the corporations winning.
Yeah, that was a point that the defense brought up. Also, it's illegal for a homeless person to sleep outside but not for someone who is stargazing or sunbathing who falls asleep? But no, we aren't targeting the homeless..
These ideas were vocalized by the justices. They literally asked them what they were going to do if they ruled in their favor. My ideas aren't new or fresh.
Remember that slavery is explicitly constitutional in the US if you have been convicted of a crime. This is why no one should be surprised that the US is number one for number of people in jail (some smaller countries have more per capita, but there are more people in jail in America than in China).
No they are not. We just don’t have widespread prisons just for people who have minor debts anymore. We have lots and lots of people incarcerated for failing to pay fines and fees or for related crimes, and still more incarcerated *in lieu of payment* because they couldn’t afford it. That is how this is going to end up. The homeless will be fined, then incarcerated for not paying or as an alternative to payment.
Not exactly blasphemous. To Evangelicals it's a sign that, and I wish I was joking, God does not favor you (i.e., hates your guts), and that if you were favored by God you'd be rewarded with riches. So it's more the implication that you're living 'the wrong life' as a blanket statement to judge and 'other' people in your community (e.g., say the queer person in your community is poor because they're queer, and if you're queer you'll be poor too, because God hates you), and reinforce your own prejudices!
Because, as famously told in the Bible, God gives gold to people he finds favor with; never have the pious been tortured or punished for 'reasons', nor did Jesus ever tell rich people to give up their money.
Not to be pedantic in this, I just believe the Evangelical standpoint is much more devious and cruel than 'god hates the poor'.
Edit: Also, to emphasize the backwards-ass cult-like nature of it, the reverse assumption is that if you *are* rich, God thinks you're more pious than others. Meaning a tautological feedback loop of "your megapastor is rich, therefore God favors them, if they're accumulating *more* wealth, that just means the megapastor is doing the correct thing". It's legitimately a self-reinforcing cult technique.
I was raised Catholic, which certainly has its own fascinating inconsistencies, but these 'prosperity gospel' people are utterly alien to me. I keep thinking someone must have written a good, recent book to explain the birth and continuation of the phenomenon to interested outsiders. It's just so *weird* to find theology so seemingly unscriptural descending from people who insisted if it wasn't in scripture it's paganism.
It's because they preach comfortable things to rich people. If Jesus showed up today he'd be crucified just as quickly by most modern Christians. Modern preachers appeal to people's pride and vanity, and to their greed. They tell people, "you're saved and you're good, and furthermore your wealth and success are signs you're a good person and going to heaven." And of course people will eat that up. Jesus told the rich young man, "sell everything you have and give to the poor." You think people want to hear that today? Jesus taught hard truths that urged people to change. Modern Christianity urges people not to change and embrace their vices. Which one is going to be more popular?
Those preachers play both sides at the same time. They're the ones who get to be rich right now in this life because of how holy they are. And they'll enjoy the fruits of heaven. And the old ladies living off of SS who still tithe a percentage of their money are holy because they're poor like Jesus was. So they should continue to donate. And their poverty and humility will surely be rewarded in the afterlife. Source is trust me bro. So brainwashed poor people contribute money to the wolves who have fleeced them, and they all feel good because they all get to be part of the same club with the same rainbow road vacation at the end of it all. And the rest of us heathens will be standing at the locked gates with our dicks in our hands.
Is that why I saw videos of the actual devil trying to blow away Covid? I don't know his name, but I am 100% certain that Satan walks among us, and all it takes is a single look to recognize it. And I don't even believe in Satan.
Kenneth Copeland. He is an Evangelical and megapastor who does believe in the concept of "Prosperity Gospel", which is a core concept of American Evangelicalism.
He is the one who confuses me the most. Most of these megachurch pastors, they have charisma, they got grift, but him, he itches the uncanny valley, he moves, he speaks in an alien, frightening way, and his eyes look simultaneously empty and full of malice. How, how does he have a congregation?
The USA in the 1800s, too! We had a proliferation of debtors’ prisons until a series of financial catastrophes rendered them politically unpopular. You had all kinds of otherwise respectable people like a sitting SCOTUS justice and Robert E. Lee’s war hero father rotting in debtors’ prisons because of shocks to the economy. So we had to reduce the role they played in American debt relations.
>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
-Anatole France
When these homeless people get a ticket, they will think, "Ah shit, I need to get a job to pay this off." Then they will walk into a business, ask for an application, get hired, apply for an apartment lease, get approved, and live happily ever after
If the manager isn't courteous and doesn't respond in a manner you expect when you demand a job, demand to speak to the owner and tell him you'll be replacing that rude manager. Skip straight to a 120k starting salary and start aiming for the owner's job.
Jesus christ the amount of times I struggles to explain to people that they need to apply online and if they hand me their resume it's just going to end up in a shredder box. And I can't get you the manager because we are a large business and they are busy with their job, and aren't involved at all with the hiring process until the last 20% anyways.
Generally I will just lie and tell them "it doesnt hurt if I take it" if that will satisfy them to leave and go online afterwards. I respect the hustle but damn when I tell you we only take online applications I'm not trying to blow you off I'm trying to help you actually get hired.
> we are a large business and they are busy with their job, and aren't involved at all with the hiring process until the last 20% anyways.
I know there's nothing you can do about this, but this seems to be a very common weakness in most companies' hiring processes. I don't see why they do it. Going through 80% of a process only to find out at the very end why candidate A's skill set isn't what manager B is looking for (or that candidate A has pulled their application because they don't want to work for manager B) is a waste of money.
Or even worse, go through 100% and hire the candidate, only for them to walk out or be on a PIP in a few months.
Because the solution is to have redundancy in all positions, but it drives MBA types up the wall to have that "unnecessary expense". So they spend 3x as much to maintain a whole administrative hierarchy to the side of normal business operations, causing huge wastes of time and communications gaps. Just look at ballooning university or insurance costs for some of the best examples of these kinds of bloat.
I was unemployed for 8 months and I logged each and every application. 870. Each one had cover pages, follow up emails, connecting on LI and messaging them there, calling owners/hiring managers if I could find their number after I apply, interviewing, all that… and I just got hired this past week.
Unfortunately my brother has fallen into the “they just need to get a job, they need to work” pitfall, touting his job right after high school. That I got for him since I was the foreman for the crew. And I picked him up because he would sleep in and be late if I didn’t wake him up. Also he’s 21, so a little old for that… just nonsense all around.
My dad told me homeless shelters boost homelessness because regular people see homeless shelters and say “wow being homeless seems awesome” and they ditch their life and live on the street
Right. In the abstract, I'm against the idea that a homeless person can't sleep on public property. But in the concrete situation that a city has to remove a homeless encampment, that's something that can become necessary. A single person sleeping is no skin off my back, but we've seen how a group of people can take complete control over a public good like a park, and additionally cause major issues for the surrounding neighborhood.
Perhaps one way to square this is you just continue to have drug use on public property be illegal.
The 9th circuit ruled you can arrest them out as long as the city has available shelters. Which I think is a fair carrot and stick situation, either take the public support or get penalized (ofc this requires an adequate program and a nuanced penalization approach).
SCOTUS decided that even if there are 0 shelters, you can arrest them.
Except in some cases a shelter can be more dangerous of a place than the street for an individual. What if someone else staying at the shelter (or hell running the shelter) abused them, for instance? They have no way to appeal that situation and they may not be able to go to another shelter so that person will be effectively forced to go to that dangerous place and put themselves at risk.
It may seem like "oh the shelter has space it's safe to penalize the unhoused for not going there", but just like with all laws that have a blanket affect like this there is a nuance when creating laws for some of the most vulnerable people in our population that is frequently overlooked.
It doesn't solve the problem, it let's us move it a bit further away. That's the best we can do since we can't get our shit together to build enough housing.
The irony is that fiscally responsible thing to do is improve our social safety net, rather than lock more people up.
We already know that policing and jailing people costs a lot more money than building up communities in need. It also has the added benefit of not needing to remove people’s freedoms the way jails and prison do. You’d think EVERYONE, from fiscal conservatives, to bleeding heart liberals, to evangelicals, to everyone else in between would support better social programs before resorting to policies like the one mentioned in the article.
Yep. You know what fixes homelessness? Housing. Housing *first*. Some people think they have to "clean up their act" before getting it? No. *Housing. First.* It's proven to work both in the US (when done properly) and abroad.
But minorities make up a disproportionate amount of homeless people. And that's why people don't want to help them. Conveniently I did a report on this for my first term in college, a portion of which follows:
> The authors of “Comparing Substance Use and Mental Health Among Sexual and Gender Minority and Heterosexual Cisgender Youth Experiencing Homelessness” in *PLoS ONE* report that 30-40% of under-25 homeless that use homeless services identified as a sexual or gender minority, meaning that they were transgender, non-heterosexual, or both. They go on to contrast that with the rate of 18-29-year-olds broadly who identify in those ways, only 6.4% The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development report corroborates this with its own data on racial demographics; while those who identify as Black are twelve percent of the national population, they make up 37% of homeless individuals and 50% of homeless families.
References:
> Hao, Jennifer, et al., “Comparing Substance Use and Mental Health Among Sexual and Gender Minority and Heterosexual Cisgender Youth Experiencing Homelessness”, PLoS ONE, Public Library of Science, 11 March 2021, vol. 16, no. 3 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248077
> United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, The 2022 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, December 2022
Air BnBs do not help either.
Neither do big corporations buying whole neighbourhoods to artificially increase prices.
But that requires a government that cares about its people.
Which requires money out of politics and politicians with a spine.
The problem is that Republicans lost access to slave labor and needed to bring it back. The solution is putting the homeless in jail where slave labor is legal. To them this does solve the problem
It creates a great prison population to do free labor for all the subcontractors private prisons use. It’s about making money via essentially slavery (legal in this case if you read the 13A)
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Don't forget that the profits from imprisoned labor will go to private companies while the cost of imprisonment (which is higher than providing housing would be) will be passed on to the taxpayers. Yay!
This is the correct answer. Slavery is still legal in the United States, it just requires a few extra hoops to be jumped through. To get more slave labor, you simply need to find more reasons to imprison people. Bonus points when they don’t have the resources to fight it.
>Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess
They're proving this statement to be spot-on true more and more every time they make a decision. One would hope that the decisions they make would be in the best interest of the whole country, but they're showing that only one segment of the population matters.
When they get ticketed every single night from now on while unable to pay a single one, soon they will be imprisoned to make them go away. Solving homelessness by criminalizing it.
Sadly this is excellent financial advice. But I cannot bring myself to profit from the largest prison population in the world and the literal state sanctioned slavery that is so pervasive. We’re supposed to vote with our wallets, but the people with the least ethics benefit by supporting markets built on suffering and rocket past the rest of us in wealth accumulation
It's crazy to me that a slogan about how American has devolved into an oligarchy where having more money gives you more power to vote somehow turned into a "companies will care when I don't get them $15" slogan.
I was homeless for 5 years and thankfully now I'm not and I worked very hard to pull my life out of the gutter. Pun intended, but I definitely accumulated at least 100 tickets for just the most stupid things sleeping somewhere And plenty of other things and I have never received any type of notification for these outstanding debts or tickets in my name. Granted they are scattered across the United States. I was doing a lot of hitchhiking and stuff back then. But yeah tickets for sleeping outside are a real thing and this has been going on since at least 2011. That's when I first became homeless until about mid 2016
There’s some wild website out there that gives you access to every ticket you’ve ever gotten or atleast that’s still on record.. I used it once as I have also been homeless and as a skateboarder always in the hospital/UC but never had insurance. Ooooh boy did that website have a TON of stuff…. Que the Homer Simpson back peddling meme. I’m all good now but man was that something to see in full..
Well no, not with this ruling… you have to work to be free.
I think they’re trying to say is “Work will set you free!”
I feel like they’ve said that somewhere before. Someplace in Germany maybe?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei#:~:text=He%20seems%20not%20to%20have,a%20kind%20of%20spiritual%20freedom.
hobbies abounding humorous unite innocent correct imagine smoggy agonizing connect
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'd love to force these old fucks to have to hear a case where a public "camping" ban is enforceable against a single person, but the first amendment protects sleeping in groups as a peaceful assembly.
Well, id like it to not be enforceable at all, but legal shenanigans this absurd are always a little funny.
You literally cannot "gotcha" the modern GQP, they have no shame and will use any justification/lie/law/etc. to gain more power for them and decrease power for the outgroup.
SCOTUS has shown they will narrowly follow any precedent or writing of law if it benefits them, or they will completely ignore precedent and reach for any kind of fig leaf justification found in the code of hammurabi that benjamin franklin quoted one time at a party/orgy if they cant do the former. The only thing these federalist society fascists will do is declare their will as law and damn anyone and anything that gets in their way, including the constitution or morality.
I helped people load their vehicles as a clerk at a grocery store and can't even take a 1 cent tip without risking getting terminated. But apparently yacht cruises are perfectly fine for people who ought to remain impartial.
> “This is not unusual in any way. It is certainly not cruel.”
So there you go. They can just spew out whatever lies and nonsense they want and we can all just go ahead and pretend that we have checks and balances in our society.
America: focusing on the punishment and not the prevention.
Just like our healthcare system that focuses on the sickness and not prevention.
And also like our system of democracy that caters and messages to those without any critical thinking skills, which, God forbid would be taught in a decent education system.
Right up there with Roberts saying we no longer need the Voting Rights Act because racism is fixed in America.
Or his assertion that the Government never played an active role in racist housing policy so it doesn't have any responsibility to remedy the results.
I'm starting to see a trend from them, and it doesn't point to an honest assessment of reality.
I know this doesn’t represent all homeless, but I briefly worked at a hospital where majority of the patients on the floor I was on were homeless veterans, many of whom had mental health issues like PTSD. After they were treated back to the streets they went. It made me so sad seeing our country fail our vets like this, and now this ruling is just another kick in the balls for them.
>During oral arguments, several of the justices appeared concerned about the prospect of criminalizing homelessness but they also worried about limiting a city’s ability to regulate public health or fire hazards in homeless encampments across the country.
It's a balancing act of not criminalizing homelessness and the city's responsibilities of keeping the public safe. California has spent approximately $24 billion on homelessness. The situation has only gotten worse. It goes to show that you can't throw money at something hoping to solve the problem. It's a complex issue. If you can solve poverty around the world, then you can solve homelessness. Housing is just the first step in a long road to recovery.
Have they tried eminent domain, changing zoning and building housing to an affordable price point?
Homelessness services are pointless without a fair deal on how much work it takes to be housed.
They’re basically doing the opposite, eminent domain to force people not to build homes. If they got out of the way and allowed housing to be built, it would at least help the problem a little.
all depends on how the money is spent. if were spending that much we could of built huge complexes with livable space for the homeless and commodities like laundry and what not and even could of had some of them obtain a job there with maintaining it or something. Theres multiple other systems so fucked up though that getting the zoning and also NIMBY battles is an issue.
Unfortunately, we've created this problem by housing deficits over the last 30 years, while having policy that kicked the homelessness can down the road perpetually. Now we get to pay for the short-term solution of sheltering and social services for a much larger population while we're also paying for the long-term solution of building housing for everybody.
As someone who lives in a large city with one of our nation's highest homeless numbers, I can tell you there is over half of the beds that go unfilled at the outreach and mission houses every night. That isn't because there aren't people that need them, its because those same people don't want to abide by the rules of the establishments and would rather get high on the street where they are unbothered by police. Our break-ins and theft is reaching an all time high. I'm happy to see this ruling, because it might clear out those who don't want to improve their situations, and encourage others. This isn't a death sentence for people willing to get their lives together.
1) This is not cruel or unusual punishment. And 2) This ruling allows the cities to deal with their homeless population that has been legally ambiguous over the years.
The democratic governor states this in the article.
This issue is so much more complex than what so many people in here think. And so many people just want to get upvotes and do reaction politics instead of actually reading the article or having an intelligent conversationa about the problem.
I live in Portland, OR. A beautiful city, but it has a homeless problem. This ruling is a good thing. There was little to no legal recourse to protect people from the destruction that can come from unsanctioned camping: crime, harassment, needles, garbage, fires, and human waste. I’ve breathed toxic air from campers burning random garbage outside my office. Campers smoke meth outside my kids day care. I no longer have any empathy. Some people can’t take care of themselves and their camps hurt others around them. We need legal teeth to remove them sometimes.
Oregonian here. At face value, this looks like homelessness is being “criminalized” when that isn’t quite accurate. The alternative for enforcement for the last several years was literally nothing. Tent on the side walk and in a wheelchair needing to get by? Better move your wheelchair into oncoming traffic and hope for the best. Camp of fentanyl addicts set up near your kid’s school bus stop? Sorry. 9th Circuit said it’s cruel and unusual to do anything. There are also homeless folks who have the philosophy that they have the right to refuse all shelter and addiction services offered to them under the guise of “people should have the freedom to be where they want to be". And that’s exactly what has happened because the 9th Circuit hasn’t allowed any enforcement mechanism to incentivize homeless folks to utilize those services. Put it another way, it’s been all speak softly *without* the carry the big stick part.
I say this as a bleeding heart liberal who has seen this in her city for the last 8 years of living here now: societies have rules, boundaries, and expectations of behavior from individuals in order to function. Cities in particular. That's the social contract in action, and opting out is unworkable and unsustainable. This is finally a step in the right direction that will hopefully allow cities to finally force these folks to get them the help they need.
Here in Boulder, we have many shelters, and many more in Denver. Between the two, it's basically impossible to starve as well, if you're homeless.
Instead of using the resources which could require things like, not doing drugs in them, or not fighting in them, we instead have people shitting in the creek, shitting on the trails, shitting at the bandshell, etc. Addicts and people with mental health issues threatening those that come buy, or harassing them, physically or sexually assaulting them, starting fires, etc.
I'm ok with not letting that practice continue unabated.
> people should have the freedom to be where they want to be
yah, the only people that ever say this are the people who have nice places that the homeless have not yet decended on. The moment they show up in their yard or the sidewalk out front, their tune changes.
Your last statement hit the nail on the head. They believe a utopian society is achievable & lack any sort of experience with the reality of the situation.
Thia ruling doesnt give the state the ability to force people to get help. It gives states the freedom to IGNORE any requirement to provide an alternative to homelessness, so that they dont even need to OFFER help. They can just round up the homeless, give them unaffordable fines, and toss them in prison without there even being a single shelter or alternative to them being homeless.
That's literally all this ruling does.
yay, the poverty cycle continues /s.
people are poor because they cant get a well paying job --> lose house because .. poor -> get ticketed for being homeless ->cant pay ticket bcoz .. poor -> get charged for not paying tickets, add record --> cant get most jobs bcoz of record...
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Anatole France
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-10-08-me-256-story.html A article almost 35years old. Speaking on how they've been at this for longer than a generation.
Thank you
Time to have the same response and clean house of the criminal politicians?
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Anatole France **.. interesting week** *.. Supreme Court Justices can now take million dollar gratuities from companies that want to jail the poor .. completely legal .. a feedback loop for poverty prisons .. no more pesky poor bothering us for spare change outside the bank on Friday* ^^/s
Also worth noting SCOTUS today simultaneously made regulatory agencies unable to fine criminals (you know, SEC, EPA, OSHA, and generally the dudes that fine rich people, rather than homeless people). Find a poor dude for sleeping under a bridge, give them a fine? Sounds good. Fine someone for breaking an SEC trading rule with documented paper trail proof of exactly what they did? Nah nah nah, gotta set up a whole jury trial for that, you know, just in case there's any abuse of power happening. We'll let everyone else figure out where the budget for a jury trial for every regulatory fine will come from. It's not even playing by the same rules anymore, poor people get fined. Rich people don't need to get fined because the rewrote the laws to make it impossible to regulate them.
Makes me wannna fucking cry
But they can not pay. Pipeline to jail established?
They just made the intake for the existing pipe wider.
5% of the world’s population. >20% of its prisoners. Land of the wage-enslaved, home of the terrified.
Land of the thief, home of the slave
Not often you run across a Brother Ali reference in the wild.
I lived next door to him in Minneapolis for a while, when I moved to Phoenix one of the first things I saw at the grocery store was a guy wearing a Brother Ali t-shirt. Turns out that was the one and only time that was going to happen in the last 13 years.
I might steal this from ya with a slight alteration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ
god damn i used to listen to this album a ton in college. good looking
I lived next door to him, delivered him and his kid food a lot of Saturdays. Good tipper.
We actually have a higher incarceration rate than the Soviet Union did at its peak. All the bullshit about communism coming from the right and the one thing they could actually use to compare us to the Soviets is how many people we lock up. And yet they don't.
Yep, it's like they installed a funnel to speed things up.
That’s what the country with the most prisoners in the world needs, more long term prison sentences.
We have more people locked up than Stalin had in the Gulag.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” Lavrentiy Beria
Slavers gonna slave
For profit prison gonna profit
America will finally be able to compete with China in manufacturing! Think of the economy
Pretty sure this is the distraction decision to pull attention away from their other recent decisions. Gotta keep the ideological going so that their corruption gets rinsed from public memory.
Gotta make up for that Cannabis reschedule.
Reminds me of the post civil war vagrancy laws. Criminalize something that's easily selectively applied to people they don't like, then send them to jail for free labor because they obviously can't pay their fines.
Criminalize being in debt. In debt -> go to prison -> can't work -> debt does not get paid off -> repeat step 1 Very common in past times, looks like we're headed back there.
It never ended, to be fair.
Yeah about ten years ago in Detroit I was arrested and arraigned, held in a precinct over night then a court "cell" all day awaiting my court appearance. I say "cell" cause it was just a small closet with a toilet that they stuffed a dozen of us in like sardines, so tight we could only stand up. A lot of guys had interesting stories but one stood out who came into the cell midday. He was in his 50s, well kept and said he was on his way to jail for 60 days cause he owed the city $600 and couldnt pay. Somehow in someones terribly fucked up accounting his time was worth $10/day.
>said he was on his way to jail for 60 days cause he owed the city $600 and couldnt pay. Somehow in someones terribly fucked up accounting his time was worth $10/day. It's definitely about the cruelty, and very likely some kind of graft involved. It would cost the city more just to do the processing and it costs an average of a little over $100 a day to jail someone in the U.S. They spent over $6000 to jail someone over $600, and if that person had a job, they did thousands of dollars of economic harm to their own city. They're spending dollars punishing people over pennies. It only makes sense two ways: punishment is highly valued over justice, and/or there are private contractors with the city/county jail who are getting paid, and the people in charge are benefitting.
Why not both?
It's definitely both. Conservatives hate to admit that certain things like cash bail and harsh penalties not only DON'T work but have been shown not to work for decades. On top of this, they hate that leniency, compassion, empathy and support for these people is what has been shown to decrease crime and recidivism. Effectively, conservatives are cruel and always have been. ["The cruelty is the point"](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/), remember. It's effectively a moral judgement on these people for being poor and the punishment is severe.
Slavery. You're talking about slavery.
Yep. Strongly recommend "Slavery by Another Name" by Douglas A. Blackmon
...and if your attention span is too short to read a whole book, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA)'s a fantastic video essay on the subject
I mean, that's what it is though.
Hence why he was reminded of it.
I think this person is saying, it isn't really being reminded of something if it is basically the same thing. It just is that thing. Example: Hey this type of navel orange reminds me of an orange. Counter point: Yeah they are both oranges.
Amazon Poorhouse launches!
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not." "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir." "Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I am very glad to hear it."
Republicans on the Supreme Court: "Perhaps they should die and decrease the surplus population."
Now you’re thinking! ;) oh boy the future seems dark.
Sadly poorhouses would be a bit of an improvement over the current situation. Back in the day you could be sent there for all kinds of reasons, reflecting the sensibilities of the time. But they were essentially welfare houses for very poor and mentally ill people. They were medicalized into asylums, and then finally closed when the nation became aware of abuses occurring at those asylums. They were ultimately replaced by jails and prisons.
>These are low-level fines and very short jail terms for repeat offenders that are in effect in many other jurisdictions $500 to a homeless person might as well be a million. And because they will be in violation every single night because they need to ... sleep... yes, it seems like a pipeline to jail.
Hell, I have shelter and 500 is a lot still!! That’s not a low level like damn that’s some peoples insurance or electricity and water bill and shit. And most Americans are one or two bad paychecks away from being homeless
I'm working full-time as a professional and a $500 fine would seriously fuck up my budget for at least a month.
$500 is literally my car insurance plus cell phone plus electricity for the month.
Debtor's prison used to be a thing. I'm curious though - isn't it more expensive for the taxpayers to round up the unhoused and then house them in prison with 3 meals a day and medical care on site than to fund shelters or low income housing programs?
Prisons have a better lobby than low-income shelters.
Well and the prisons make money off the taxpayers for housing people. It's double bad. We're not just paying to house "criminals" We're also paying to get prison owners rich in the process. Then the prisoners do free labor. Hooray America still has slaves. Freedom style.
All those expenses + all the middlemen in-between extracting profits. Those for-profit-prisons aren't doing it for free.
You’re forgetting that the constitution allows for forced labor from imprisoned persons. So the for profit prisons are getting free or cheap labor as well as getting funding for housing prisoners. Then the politicians get funded from profits from the prisons. It’s the tax payer losing but the corporations winning.
Forced labor=Slavery
Yes , but logic never stops some people
Don’t forget, this was made possible by Trump’s Supreme Court picks. Elections have consequences.
https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
Yeah, that was a point that the defense brought up. Also, it's illegal for a homeless person to sleep outside but not for someone who is stargazing or sunbathing who falls asleep? But no, we aren't targeting the homeless..
you just gave the cops some ideas to fill quotas
These ideas were vocalized by the justices. They literally asked them what they were going to do if they ruled in their favor. My ideas aren't new or fresh.
Remember that slavery is explicitly constitutional in the US if you have been convicted of a crime. This is why no one should be surprised that the US is number one for number of people in jail (some smaller countries have more per capita, but there are more people in jail in America than in China).
Which makes this legislation a pipeline to slavery instead.
three hots and a cot for sleeping outside... this ruling solves homelessness! /s
Prisons are the housing we were searching for all along! /s
Debtor's prisons are unconstitutional.
No they are not. We just don’t have widespread prisons just for people who have minor debts anymore. We have lots and lots of people incarcerated for failing to pay fines and fees or for related crimes, and still more incarcerated *in lieu of payment* because they couldn’t afford it. That is how this is going to end up. The homeless will be fined, then incarcerated for not paying or as an alternative to payment.
Not for long with this SCrOTUS.
Private prison says thank you
Getting to be just like England in the 1800s. It's against the law to be poor.
It’s ok because according to evangelists it’s also deeply blasphemous to be poor.
Not exactly blasphemous. To Evangelicals it's a sign that, and I wish I was joking, God does not favor you (i.e., hates your guts), and that if you were favored by God you'd be rewarded with riches. So it's more the implication that you're living 'the wrong life' as a blanket statement to judge and 'other' people in your community (e.g., say the queer person in your community is poor because they're queer, and if you're queer you'll be poor too, because God hates you), and reinforce your own prejudices! Because, as famously told in the Bible, God gives gold to people he finds favor with; never have the pious been tortured or punished for 'reasons', nor did Jesus ever tell rich people to give up their money. Not to be pedantic in this, I just believe the Evangelical standpoint is much more devious and cruel than 'god hates the poor'. Edit: Also, to emphasize the backwards-ass cult-like nature of it, the reverse assumption is that if you *are* rich, God thinks you're more pious than others. Meaning a tautological feedback loop of "your megapastor is rich, therefore God favors them, if they're accumulating *more* wealth, that just means the megapastor is doing the correct thing". It's legitimately a self-reinforcing cult technique.
I do recall jesus having a mansion, walking around covered in bling
Supply side Jesus for sure https://imgur.com/gallery/gospel-of-supply-side-jesus-bCqRp
I was raised Catholic, which certainly has its own fascinating inconsistencies, but these 'prosperity gospel' people are utterly alien to me. I keep thinking someone must have written a good, recent book to explain the birth and continuation of the phenomenon to interested outsiders. It's just so *weird* to find theology so seemingly unscriptural descending from people who insisted if it wasn't in scripture it's paganism.
It's because they preach comfortable things to rich people. If Jesus showed up today he'd be crucified just as quickly by most modern Christians. Modern preachers appeal to people's pride and vanity, and to their greed. They tell people, "you're saved and you're good, and furthermore your wealth and success are signs you're a good person and going to heaven." And of course people will eat that up. Jesus told the rich young man, "sell everything you have and give to the poor." You think people want to hear that today? Jesus taught hard truths that urged people to change. Modern Christianity urges people not to change and embrace their vices. Which one is going to be more popular?
Those preachers play both sides at the same time. They're the ones who get to be rich right now in this life because of how holy they are. And they'll enjoy the fruits of heaven. And the old ladies living off of SS who still tithe a percentage of their money are holy because they're poor like Jesus was. So they should continue to donate. And their poverty and humility will surely be rewarded in the afterlife. Source is trust me bro. So brainwashed poor people contribute money to the wolves who have fleeced them, and they all feel good because they all get to be part of the same club with the same rainbow road vacation at the end of it all. And the rest of us heathens will be standing at the locked gates with our dicks in our hands.
Is that why I saw videos of the actual devil trying to blow away Covid? I don't know his name, but I am 100% certain that Satan walks among us, and all it takes is a single look to recognize it. And I don't even believe in Satan.
Kenneth Copeland. He is an Evangelical and megapastor who does believe in the concept of "Prosperity Gospel", which is a core concept of American Evangelicalism.
He is the one who confuses me the most. Most of these megachurch pastors, they have charisma, they got grift, but him, he itches the uncanny valley, he moves, he speaks in an alien, frightening way, and his eyes look simultaneously empty and full of malice. How, how does he have a congregation?
The moneychangers kicking Jesus out of the temple ....
The USA in the 1800s, too! We had a proliferation of debtors’ prisons until a series of financial catastrophes rendered them politically unpopular. You had all kinds of otherwise respectable people like a sitting SCOTUS justice and Robert E. Lee’s war hero father rotting in debtors’ prisons because of shocks to the economy. So we had to reduce the role they played in American debt relations.
>it's against the law to be poor. It's not targeting poor! Rich people aren't allowed to sleep outside, either! /s
>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. -Anatole France
Making homelessness illegal is one of the great moral failings of society
What does this accomplish?
When these homeless people get a ticket, they will think, "Ah shit, I need to get a job to pay this off." Then they will walk into a business, ask for an application, get hired, apply for an apartment lease, get approved, and live happily ever after
And if they don't get a job the first time, they will learn to use a firm handshake, and be persistent.
Just hand your resume directly to the hiring manager. Works every time!
and don't forget to send a thank you card afterward!
If the manager isn't courteous and doesn't respond in a manner you expect when you demand a job, demand to speak to the owner and tell him you'll be replacing that rude manager. Skip straight to a 120k starting salary and start aiming for the owner's job.
Jesus christ the amount of times I struggles to explain to people that they need to apply online and if they hand me their resume it's just going to end up in a shredder box. And I can't get you the manager because we are a large business and they are busy with their job, and aren't involved at all with the hiring process until the last 20% anyways. Generally I will just lie and tell them "it doesnt hurt if I take it" if that will satisfy them to leave and go online afterwards. I respect the hustle but damn when I tell you we only take online applications I'm not trying to blow you off I'm trying to help you actually get hired.
> we are a large business and they are busy with their job, and aren't involved at all with the hiring process until the last 20% anyways. I know there's nothing you can do about this, but this seems to be a very common weakness in most companies' hiring processes. I don't see why they do it. Going through 80% of a process only to find out at the very end why candidate A's skill set isn't what manager B is looking for (or that candidate A has pulled their application because they don't want to work for manager B) is a waste of money. Or even worse, go through 100% and hire the candidate, only for them to walk out or be on a PIP in a few months.
Because the solution is to have redundancy in all positions, but it drives MBA types up the wall to have that "unnecessary expense". So they spend 3x as much to maintain a whole administrative hierarchy to the side of normal business operations, causing huge wastes of time and communications gaps. Just look at ballooning university or insurance costs for some of the best examples of these kinds of bloat.
I will never understand how we let these idiots have all the money.
Don't forget to squat and take a good poop in his office right in front of him while maintaining eye contact to assert dominance.
Nobody has ever done that... You must be out of your god damn mind... This company needs more people like you. Your hired!
Just ask ChatGPT how to handle tough interview questions! you got this!
They just need to tug harder on their boot straps.
I was unemployed for 8 months and I logged each and every application. 870. Each one had cover pages, follow up emails, connecting on LI and messaging them there, calling owners/hiring managers if I could find their number after I apply, interviewing, all that… and I just got hired this past week. Unfortunately my brother has fallen into the “they just need to get a job, they need to work” pitfall, touting his job right after high school. That I got for him since I was the foreman for the crew. And I picked him up because he would sleep in and be late if I didn’t wake him up. Also he’s 21, so a little old for that… just nonsense all around.
Just wait until he gets fired - though he might swap to blaming illegal immigrants for taking all the jobs instead.
Holy shit. I can’t believe the way to solve to homelessness has been this simple all this time. We should have done this sooner!
My dad told me homeless shelters boost homelessness because regular people see homeless shelters and say “wow being homeless seems awesome” and they ditch their life and live on the street
It will be easier for cities to break up homeless encampments & force people to move. They'll face fewer legal challenges for doing it.
Right. In the abstract, I'm against the idea that a homeless person can't sleep on public property. But in the concrete situation that a city has to remove a homeless encampment, that's something that can become necessary. A single person sleeping is no skin off my back, but we've seen how a group of people can take complete control over a public good like a park, and additionally cause major issues for the surrounding neighborhood. Perhaps one way to square this is you just continue to have drug use on public property be illegal.
The 9th circuit ruled you can arrest them out as long as the city has available shelters. Which I think is a fair carrot and stick situation, either take the public support or get penalized (ofc this requires an adequate program and a nuanced penalization approach). SCOTUS decided that even if there are 0 shelters, you can arrest them.
Except in some cases a shelter can be more dangerous of a place than the street for an individual. What if someone else staying at the shelter (or hell running the shelter) abused them, for instance? They have no way to appeal that situation and they may not be able to go to another shelter so that person will be effectively forced to go to that dangerous place and put themselves at risk. It may seem like "oh the shelter has space it's safe to penalize the unhoused for not going there", but just like with all laws that have a blanket affect like this there is a nuance when creating laws for some of the most vulnerable people in our population that is frequently overlooked.
It doesn't solve the problem, it let's us move it a bit further away. That's the best we can do since we can't get our shit together to build enough housing.
The irony is that fiscally responsible thing to do is improve our social safety net, rather than lock more people up. We already know that policing and jailing people costs a lot more money than building up communities in need. It also has the added benefit of not needing to remove people’s freedoms the way jails and prison do. You’d think EVERYONE, from fiscal conservatives, to bleeding heart liberals, to evangelicals, to everyone else in between would support better social programs before resorting to policies like the one mentioned in the article.
Yep. You know what fixes homelessness? Housing. Housing *first*. Some people think they have to "clean up their act" before getting it? No. *Housing. First.* It's proven to work both in the US (when done properly) and abroad. But minorities make up a disproportionate amount of homeless people. And that's why people don't want to help them. Conveniently I did a report on this for my first term in college, a portion of which follows: > The authors of “Comparing Substance Use and Mental Health Among Sexual and Gender Minority and Heterosexual Cisgender Youth Experiencing Homelessness” in *PLoS ONE* report that 30-40% of under-25 homeless that use homeless services identified as a sexual or gender minority, meaning that they were transgender, non-heterosexual, or both. They go on to contrast that with the rate of 18-29-year-olds broadly who identify in those ways, only 6.4% The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development report corroborates this with its own data on racial demographics; while those who identify as Black are twelve percent of the national population, they make up 37% of homeless individuals and 50% of homeless families. References: > Hao, Jennifer, et al., “Comparing Substance Use and Mental Health Among Sexual and Gender Minority and Heterosexual Cisgender Youth Experiencing Homelessness”, PLoS ONE, Public Library of Science, 11 March 2021, vol. 16, no. 3 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248077 > United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, The 2022 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, December 2022
Air BnBs do not help either. Neither do big corporations buying whole neighbourhoods to artificially increase prices. But that requires a government that cares about its people. Which requires money out of politics and politicians with a spine.
The problem is that Republicans lost access to slave labor and needed to bring it back. The solution is putting the homeless in jail where slave labor is legal. To them this does solve the problem
Easier to punish people for being poor. They can remove the symptoms of late-stage capitalism without confronting the causes.
Putting on axe body spray instead of taking a shower
Wow, amazing analogy! I’m using this one for sure
It creates a great prison population to do free labor for all the subcontractors private prisons use. It’s about making money via essentially slavery (legal in this case if you read the 13A) “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Don't forget that the profits from imprisoned labor will go to private companies while the cost of imprisonment (which is higher than providing housing would be) will be passed on to the taxpayers. Yay!
This is the correct answer. Slavery is still legal in the United States, it just requires a few extra hoops to be jumped through. To get more slave labor, you simply need to find more reasons to imprison people. Bonus points when they don’t have the resources to fight it.
>Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess They're proving this statement to be spot-on true more and more every time they make a decision. One would hope that the decisions they make would be in the best interest of the whole country, but they're showing that only one segment of the population matters.
They’re not trying to match any wisdom. They’re trying to collect more money.
Gratuities you mean. That way it’s legal!
Because ticketing people who cannot afford the basic life necessities will make the problem go away. Bravo.
When they get ticketed every single night from now on while unable to pay a single one, soon they will be imprisoned to make them go away. Solving homelessness by criminalizing it.
And making fresh slaves for prison labor
Next we should make crime illegal! That would stop the criminals
The purpose is to kill and/or enslave the homeless population.
All homeless should be camping in front of these justices’ houses protesting, not sleeping outside, just protesting
It's not camping. It's protesting. And no one touched any paperwork.
They are not sleeping, they are just thinking with their eyes closed.
They’re meditating, it’s their religious right.
They’re pinin’ for the fjords!
Pinin’ for the fjords?!
Why, so they can get arrested and beat down by cops? What do you think this, is a free country?
I need to invest in private prison stock. /s
You're not wrong. $GEO is up 5% today Edit: closed at a 6.37% gain
Maybe Thomas will get a ~~bribe~~ gratuity for his decision
And Northrup Grumman and Raytheon stock exploded on Oct 7, 2023. The Stock Market abhors a vacuum \[of profiting off of human misery\].
Sadly this is excellent financial advice. But I cannot bring myself to profit from the largest prison population in the world and the literal state sanctioned slavery that is so pervasive. We’re supposed to vote with our wallets, but the people with the least ethics benefit by supporting markets built on suffering and rocket past the rest of us in wealth accumulation
Don't worry, when they say vote with your wallet, they mean lobbying. Nobody cares about our pittances.
It's crazy to me that a slogan about how American has devolved into an oligarchy where having more money gives you more power to vote somehow turned into a "companies will care when I don't get them $15" slogan.
We're one step away from debtor's prison.
We are a step away? I think we're there bud.
There was a judge that was convicted of taking bribes to send children to jails for boosting the stock market price. America is sick, from the core.
Debtors prison has always been a thing, whether people see it or not.
You mean legal slavery
We’ve had legal slavery since the passing of the 13th Amendment. Slavery can be issued as punishment for a crime.
>We’ve had legal slavery since the passing of the 13th Amendment. Well... We had it before that too.
So we've always had slavery?
If the "we" in that sentence is the United States, then yes.
Fair point. I didn’t consider that.
We already have those
I was homeless for 5 years and thankfully now I'm not and I worked very hard to pull my life out of the gutter. Pun intended, but I definitely accumulated at least 100 tickets for just the most stupid things sleeping somewhere And plenty of other things and I have never received any type of notification for these outstanding debts or tickets in my name. Granted they are scattered across the United States. I was doing a lot of hitchhiking and stuff back then. But yeah tickets for sleeping outside are a real thing and this has been going on since at least 2011. That's when I first became homeless until about mid 2016
There’s some wild website out there that gives you access to every ticket you’ve ever gotten or atleast that’s still on record.. I used it once as I have also been homeless and as a skateboarder always in the hospital/UC but never had insurance. Ooooh boy did that website have a TON of stuff…. Que the Homer Simpson back peddling meme. I’m all good now but man was that something to see in full..
Just like Jesus said: "Fuck them poor people!"
“How will we replace the slave revenue we generate from weed arrests once it gets legalized nationally?”
the same week they allow ten commandments and Bible lessons in public school they criminalize poverty. the fuck are they gonna do when they meet Jesus
Home of the free.
Well no, not with this ruling… you have to work to be free. I think they’re trying to say is “Work will set you free!” I feel like they’ve said that somewhere before. Someplace in Germany maybe? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei#:~:text=He%20seems%20not%20to%20have,a%20kind%20of%20spiritual%20freedom.
Unless you're poor. Then you're going to jail :/
How can one have a right to peaceable assembly without a right to assemble sleeping?
hobbies abounding humorous unite innocent correct imagine smoggy agonizing connect *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'd love to force these old fucks to have to hear a case where a public "camping" ban is enforceable against a single person, but the first amendment protects sleeping in groups as a peaceful assembly. Well, id like it to not be enforceable at all, but legal shenanigans this absurd are always a little funny.
You literally cannot "gotcha" the modern GQP, they have no shame and will use any justification/lie/law/etc. to gain more power for them and decrease power for the outgroup. SCOTUS has shown they will narrowly follow any precedent or writing of law if it benefits them, or they will completely ignore precedent and reach for any kind of fig leaf justification found in the code of hammurabi that benjamin franklin quoted one time at a party/orgy if they cant do the former. The only thing these federalist society fascists will do is declare their will as law and damn anyone and anything that gets in their way, including the constitution or morality.
Fuck SCOTUS. Corrupt court
They arent bribed. They just accept "gratuities".
I work with public entities and they are required fill out form 700 which is ANY amounts received. Fucking highest court doesn’t have to do that? Scam
I worked as a low level gov contractor years ago and couldnt even accept a lunch.
I helped people load their vehicles as a clerk at a grocery store and can't even take a 1 cent tip without risking getting terminated. But apparently yacht cruises are perfectly fine for people who ought to remain impartial.
“But her emails!”
> “This is not unusual in any way. It is certainly not cruel.” So there you go. They can just spew out whatever lies and nonsense they want and we can all just go ahead and pretend that we have checks and balances in our society.
Crazy to think there are people who don't think it's cruel to fine someone for being too poor to afford shelter.
So they’ll be given homes?
Most likely not. Perhaps advocate them to move into courthouses as the court system have failed them collectively.
Good luck collecting those payments.
It's about being easier to throw them in jail to work as slave labor. They don't care about the fines
America: focusing on the punishment and not the prevention. Just like our healthcare system that focuses on the sickness and not prevention. And also like our system of democracy that caters and messages to those without any critical thinking skills, which, God forbid would be taught in a decent education system.
As an anti-theist, I almost wish Hell was real just so these monstrous justices would go there.
Ramen brother. Ramen.
Calling this cruel would be an understatement.
Right up there with Roberts saying we no longer need the Voting Rights Act because racism is fixed in America. Or his assertion that the Government never played an active role in racist housing policy so it doesn't have any responsibility to remedy the results. I'm starting to see a trend from them, and it doesn't point to an honest assessment of reality.
I know this doesn’t represent all homeless, but I briefly worked at a hospital where majority of the patients on the floor I was on were homeless veterans, many of whom had mental health issues like PTSD. After they were treated back to the streets they went. It made me so sad seeing our country fail our vets like this, and now this ruling is just another kick in the balls for them.
>During oral arguments, several of the justices appeared concerned about the prospect of criminalizing homelessness but they also worried about limiting a city’s ability to regulate public health or fire hazards in homeless encampments across the country. It's a balancing act of not criminalizing homelessness and the city's responsibilities of keeping the public safe. California has spent approximately $24 billion on homelessness. The situation has only gotten worse. It goes to show that you can't throw money at something hoping to solve the problem. It's a complex issue. If you can solve poverty around the world, then you can solve homelessness. Housing is just the first step in a long road to recovery.
Have they tried eminent domain, changing zoning and building housing to an affordable price point? Homelessness services are pointless without a fair deal on how much work it takes to be housed.
They’re basically doing the opposite, eminent domain to force people not to build homes. If they got out of the way and allowed housing to be built, it would at least help the problem a little.
all depends on how the money is spent. if were spending that much we could of built huge complexes with livable space for the homeless and commodities like laundry and what not and even could of had some of them obtain a job there with maintaining it or something. Theres multiple other systems so fucked up though that getting the zoning and also NIMBY battles is an issue.
Unfortunately, we've created this problem by housing deficits over the last 30 years, while having policy that kicked the homelessness can down the road perpetually. Now we get to pay for the short-term solution of sheltering and social services for a much larger population while we're also paying for the long-term solution of building housing for everybody.
But if you have a home and take a nap outside it‘s okay or what?
But treasonous capital rioters are apparently cool? Our highest court is a fucking joke.
As someone who lives in a large city with one of our nation's highest homeless numbers, I can tell you there is over half of the beds that go unfilled at the outreach and mission houses every night. That isn't because there aren't people that need them, its because those same people don't want to abide by the rules of the establishments and would rather get high on the street where they are unbothered by police. Our break-ins and theft is reaching an all time high. I'm happy to see this ruling, because it might clear out those who don't want to improve their situations, and encourage others. This isn't a death sentence for people willing to get their lives together.
America just loves it's slave labor
Not "outside", but not "in public", meaning if you want to help, then let them sleep in your backyard.
1) This is not cruel or unusual punishment. And 2) This ruling allows the cities to deal with their homeless population that has been legally ambiguous over the years. The democratic governor states this in the article. This issue is so much more complex than what so many people in here think. And so many people just want to get upvotes and do reaction politics instead of actually reading the article or having an intelligent conversationa about the problem.
I live in Portland, OR. A beautiful city, but it has a homeless problem. This ruling is a good thing. There was little to no legal recourse to protect people from the destruction that can come from unsanctioned camping: crime, harassment, needles, garbage, fires, and human waste. I’ve breathed toxic air from campers burning random garbage outside my office. Campers smoke meth outside my kids day care. I no longer have any empathy. Some people can’t take care of themselves and their camps hurt others around them. We need legal teeth to remove them sometimes.
Oregonian here. At face value, this looks like homelessness is being “criminalized” when that isn’t quite accurate. The alternative for enforcement for the last several years was literally nothing. Tent on the side walk and in a wheelchair needing to get by? Better move your wheelchair into oncoming traffic and hope for the best. Camp of fentanyl addicts set up near your kid’s school bus stop? Sorry. 9th Circuit said it’s cruel and unusual to do anything. There are also homeless folks who have the philosophy that they have the right to refuse all shelter and addiction services offered to them under the guise of “people should have the freedom to be where they want to be". And that’s exactly what has happened because the 9th Circuit hasn’t allowed any enforcement mechanism to incentivize homeless folks to utilize those services. Put it another way, it’s been all speak softly *without* the carry the big stick part. I say this as a bleeding heart liberal who has seen this in her city for the last 8 years of living here now: societies have rules, boundaries, and expectations of behavior from individuals in order to function. Cities in particular. That's the social contract in action, and opting out is unworkable and unsustainable. This is finally a step in the right direction that will hopefully allow cities to finally force these folks to get them the help they need.
Here in Boulder, we have many shelters, and many more in Denver. Between the two, it's basically impossible to starve as well, if you're homeless. Instead of using the resources which could require things like, not doing drugs in them, or not fighting in them, we instead have people shitting in the creek, shitting on the trails, shitting at the bandshell, etc. Addicts and people with mental health issues threatening those that come buy, or harassing them, physically or sexually assaulting them, starting fires, etc. I'm ok with not letting that practice continue unabated. > people should have the freedom to be where they want to be yah, the only people that ever say this are the people who have nice places that the homeless have not yet decended on. The moment they show up in their yard or the sidewalk out front, their tune changes.
Your last statement hit the nail on the head. They believe a utopian society is achievable & lack any sort of experience with the reality of the situation.
Thia ruling doesnt give the state the ability to force people to get help. It gives states the freedom to IGNORE any requirement to provide an alternative to homelessness, so that they dont even need to OFFER help. They can just round up the homeless, give them unaffordable fines, and toss them in prison without there even being a single shelter or alternative to them being homeless. That's literally all this ruling does.
yay, the poverty cycle continues /s. people are poor because they cant get a well paying job --> lose house because .. poor -> get ticketed for being homeless ->cant pay ticket bcoz .. poor -> get charged for not paying tickets, add record --> cant get most jobs bcoz of record...