Appeals Court Slaps L.A. Over Arrests of Homeless

LA Times ^ | 4/14/06 | Henry Weinstein and Cara DiMassa

[ikka]

So, are we going to take a collection to fund these urban outdoorsmen to show up outside the good judge's home?

[Lancey Howard]

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

LMAO! That's where I stopped reading - - at the punchline.
Anyways, I think the obvious thing for Los Angeles to do is to scoop up the homeless and take them up to San Fransicko where they belong.

[ga medic]

OK, please explain why these people should be incarcerated. As a form of punishment? To protect them? I don't understand this. It has got to cost a lot more to keep the homeless incarcerated than it does to provide adequate homeless shelters. It's not like these people will wake up in jail and say "wow, I am never going to do that again." Why spend the extra money to continue locking these people up?

[Lunatic Fringe]

Placing a homeless person in jail where he can get food, shelter, and medical care is "cruel and unusual punishment"?

I think a wealthy society that allows this type of problem to continue is cruel and unusual.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Excellent point. A society as wealthy as ours should be able to provide shelter to the homeless.

[walford]

"Excellent point. A society as wealthy as ours should be able to provide shelter to the homeless."

Most people who cannot afford to live indoors do not want society to 'provide' them with anything. If we are going to criminalize homelessness, however, then there has to be a case made that there were viable alternatives. But the typical single digit percentage of shelter space to actual numbers of homeless -- who include men, women and children amongst their numbers -- demonstrates the absurdity of holding the homeless to be eligible for incarceration.

Have any of you who allege that being in jail is better than being on a park bench actually ever been in the clink?

We are turning the mentally ill/chronic substance abusers loose on the streets. They should indeed be institutionalized, but not in a place where they will garner a criminal record -- thus reduced employability -- and suffer the risks associated with being warehoused with violent criminals.

The rest of the homeless [those who are in fact decent, intelligent, sane, willing to work, are working but not making enough, etc] should not be subject to that either.

[AmishDude]

Have any of you who allege that being in jail is better than being on a park bench actually ever been in the clink?

How else would you punish theft? That public park bench is for public use. But when a "homeless person" decides to make that park bench a bed, then they appropriate it for themselves. They can be homeless all they want. Knock yourself out. But if you don't want to pay the price of living in civilization, then don't live off of its fruits.

[speedy]

But do you think that all people who are homeless should be in jail?

No. Some should be. Some (the vast majority) should be in facilities for the mentally ill. Some should be in homeless shelters, although I can tell you from first-hand experience that very few will go to these willingly. But the one place they can not be, and have never been allowed to be until relatively recently, is on the sidewalk or the park bench. Neither they nor the public benefits from this. Well, the ACLU benefits because they get their jollies by forcing the hated middle class to be constantly exposed to the underside of life.

[walford]

"How else would you punish theft? That public park bench is for public use. But when a "homeless person" decides to make that park bench a bed, then they appropriate it for themselves..."

So it's the person's living status that determines whether he/she is a member of the 'public' who is entitled to use a bench, or under a tree, under a bridge, in one's car [note post #18]. If they have a warm place to sleep at night, they can use the bench all they want, but if they don't they are subject to a different set of laws?

OK, so let's say we accept this paradigm. Where would you like people who do not have a proper place to live to go? Should all of them be incarcerated so that they will be sanitized from your milieu?

When a family is evicted with no place to go should there be paddy wagons waiting to cart everyone away? Where do you draw the line?

[AmishDude]

It's not a status. It's their actions. If you want to live the wild life, live life in the wild. It's not the lack of shelters, it's that they won't go there.

[ga medic]

Wow, I didn't realize that homeless people were not part of the public. I am curious about where you think these homeless people should go. Is there some kind of non-public, non-private location where these people can sleep? I don't see how arresting these people for stealing time on a park bench is a benefit to anyone. It is expensive to keep people in jail. Why not just build homeless shelters, which are far less expensive?

[rodeocowboy]

The first and most important thing is, this is where liberalism, sadly to say that began with Lincoln in the civil war era, has taken us. The federal government is ruling on a state/local case.

[walford]

"But do you think that all people who are homeless should be in jail?"

No. Some should be. Some (the vast majority) should be in facilities for the mentally ill. Some should be in homeless shelters, although I can tell you from first-hand experience that very few will go to these willingly.

Would you? From the 2nd linked article in post #18:

...But the shelters have far fewer beds than there are bedless people—and many are damned unpleasant anyway. I cannot bear to even walk past the Federal City Shelter near Judiciary Square. The [urine] smell can be overwhelming. And, given the shelter’s apparent resolve to not turn people away, its clientele can be hardcore.

Of the nice, clean shelters where the truly offensive are screened out—such as the Embry Rucker Community Shelter in Reston—most are likely dormitories clustered with guys of varying standards of hygiene snoring, farting, yammering, and thrashing in their bunks. If you can deal with that, bully for you...

But the one place they can not be, and have never been allowed to be until relatively recently, is on the sidewalk or the park bench. Neither they nor the public benefits from this.

And you consider jail to be a better alternative? This is a place where they risk having their lower intestine perforated by a certain body part from another man, which happened to a person locally who was in jail for failure to appear because he was homeless and unable to be summonsed for not paying a doctor bill.

If we are going to punish people for sleeping on a sidewalk or bench, then there has to be a place for them to go as an alternative. Even in the [mostly nasty shelters] available, there are only enough beds to hold a fraction of thier numbers. We must decide to either build enough shelters to house them all -- which is politically impossible. Or leave them alone if they're not bothering you. And their mere existence is not sufficient cause.

Well, the ACLU benefits because they get their jollies by forcing the hated middle class to be constantly exposed to the underside of life.

The underside of life does exist, I'm sorry. Perhaps those who beat the homeless to death or burn them alive should be considered heroes then, doing society's dirty work.

[rodeocowboy]

Wow, I didn't realize that homeless people were not part of the public. I am curious about where you think these homeless people should go. Is there some kind of non-public, non-private location where these people can sleep? I don't see how arresting these people for stealing time on a park bench is a benefit to anyone. It is expensive to keep people in jail. Why not just build homeless shelters, which are far less expensive?

Well, if we didn't have tax supported parks in the first place, then the bum would have to pay to sleep there, thereby eliminating bums from the park (does Six Flags have a bum problem? No!). But since we pay for parks with our taxes (which shouldn't be the case), we shouldn't let non taxpayers abuse our gift.

[ga medic]

So where do you propose they sleep? Jails are much more expensive than parks. The money to pay for both of them come from the same source.

[Lurker]

A society as wealthy as ours should be able to provide shelter to the homeless.

Get out your own f****** checkbook if you want to provide shelter to the homeless. Leave me out of it.

Your mighty generous with other folks money.

L

[Lunatic Fringe]

Providing shelter is cheaper than arresting people for the "crime" of being poor.

[Lurker]

Like I said. Use your own damn money.

L

[Lunatic Fringe]

Actually, I do use my own money for this by donating to local charities. Unfortunately, everyone else has the same poor attitude that you posses: "It's not my problem, so don't expect my money."

But it is your problem, and your money is spent on the homeless in other areas- tax money for jails, tax money for defense attorneys, tax money for food stamps, tax money for shelters, tax money for drug rehab.

But selfish and judgmental people like you who believe poverty is some sort of moral shortcoming fail to address the economic impact of homelessness. If people were kind and compassionate and helped people through charities, we would not be required to spend tax money through an inefficient and wasteful government bureaucracy.

Throwing people in jail for being poor and homeless is an obscene waste of resources, but I guess you'd prefer to have your tax dollars wasted rather than confront the ugly truth.

[ga medic]

Actually, the police arresting these homeless people are being generous with your money. How much do you think it costs to keep a homeless person in jail for one night? It isn't free. Homeless shelters cost less. They don't have 24 hour surveillance etc. Think of the costs involved in reprocessing a homeless person each time they are arrested. If it is your wallet that you are concerned about, I would think you would seriously oppose this practice.