Posted on 04/14/2006 4:47:28 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
After screwing themselves up they generally end up having an encounter of some kind or another with the cops or EMS who deposit them either in jail or (more frequently) at the nearest ER. Once there, the cycle starts all over again.
So, what do you do with them? Jail is expensive, impractical, and ultimately not an appropriate way of dealing with the problem. It would be possible to let them continue the cycle indefinitely if it weren't for the fact that some hospitals have the temerity to want to stop acting like the last stop on the social services gravy train and actually treat sick people from time to time. Long-term institutionalization is a possibility, but it's usually a last resort for the violently or incurably insane; not something that you do for the average crack-addled schizophrenic.
It's a thorny problem, and not one that's going to be solved anytime soon.
I think your claim that most of them are insane is incorrect. And we only lock people up if they are a danger to society.
SOME homeless are a little nuts. SOME are lazy. SOME are criminal. And SOME are victims of bad circumstances.
---
Thanks for responding.
Do you happen to have any harder statistics than that? Also I would argue that if you are insane, by definition you can't judge the consequences of your actions, and therefore you are a danger to society. A few months ago some homeless guy set another one on fire, right in the financial district of San Francisco.
And your comment "A law that says homeless people sleeping in a park is illegal IS unconstitutional because it is not providing the same protections to all citizens." -- I think you are absolutely right. The reason why we have made bad law is because we have even worse policy and breakdown of social institutions. Law and order has been forgotten, and so bums and other miscreants have been allowed to roam wild.
So you have to have all these fake laws that try to patch up the problem by addresses the ramifications of the bad behaviors because you can't/aren't allowed (thanks stupid ACLU) address the cause.
Hey, I'm just validating your interpretation of the Constitution. You say "homeless shelter" isn't in there, so that must mean it's unconstitutional.
Lots of words aren't in the Constitution: "schools," "Marines," "prisons," "highways," "spaceships," "border patrol," the list goes on. By your logic, the funding for all of these items must immediately cease, and if you want them you need to provide them yourself.
Hey thanks for the insights.
You say "Long-term institutionalization is a possibility, but it's usually a last resort for the violently or incurably insane; not something that you do for the average crack-addled schizophrenic."
Why not? And how come we didn't have this problem 20-30 years ago? Was it because as a society we had more shame back then?
And where are these people's families? Isn't that the first net that should catch these bums?
Homelessness is a problem as old as poverty.
Homelessness is a problem as old as poverty.
--
Can you provide me some documentation on that? My parents and in-laws both were dirt poor, but they still had a home.
Can you please explain this statement because I can't make heads or tails of it. What 'protection' are the homeless not getting that the rest of us supposedly are? Does the poster mean that those of us with homes are allowed to sleep in parks but those of us without homes aren't?
Your tagline states 'The Framers Rock'. Well take a look a couple of posts up for the Framers take on this kind of benificience provided by the long suffering US taxpayer.
Here's the situation as I see it. In LA they passed a law making it illegal to sleep in public parks. The ACLU aided by the usual suspects sued saying this was un-Constitutional somehow and the 9th Circuit agreed saying that it was a violation of the 8th Amendments prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Now please explain to me how putting someone in jail for violating a duly constituted ordinance against living in public spaces is a 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Because for the life of me I can't see how it is either cruel or unusual.
Maybe if the penalty were keelhauling or being pilloried I could agree, but a simple jail sentence? Spare me.
In my town if you're caught sleeping in a park and refuse to leave you're darn sure going to get someplace to sleep and it's the city lock up.
I suggest you and some other posters on this thread read up on what the Framers had to say about 'charity' when provided by the taxpayer. I think you'll be shocked at what they actually had to say on the subject.
L
I'm hearing that Twilight Zone music here. Three quarters of the posts above yours belong on DU, not here. I'm just glad I saw your post, otherwise I would have to delete FR from my favorites. Geez.
I say that because you're statement while just about half right is completely stupid.
Now why don't you just pipe down before you force me to use your own words to show the entire forum just how abysmally ignorant you are of the Constitution.
L
Actually the word "roads" is in the Constitution. "Armies" and "Navy" is in there as well. Since the Marines are a department of the Navy that's not a problem. There is a specific Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing Customs and another directing the Federal Government to 'defend each of the Several States from invasion', so the Border Patrol is ok.
You've, quite accidentally btw, hit on a couple of things which are most emphatically not enumerated (look it up) responsibilities. Schools spring to mind as well as spaceships.
And you've accidentally tripped over the Founding Fathers attitude about those other fine things. Provide them yourselves and quit stealing your fellow citizens money.
Capiche?
L
This Lunatic Fringe clown is pretty aptly named. He obviously has never even read the Constitution. The only problem with rhetorically bi*** slapping him is that it's going to be waaaay too easy.
But it is a pretty sad commentary on the knowledge level of the average Freeper isn't it.
L
LOL!! Why don't you defend your argument instead of resorting to name-calling and meaningless threats? Defend your claim that because the words "homeless shelter" do not appear in the Constitution, government has no responsibility to provide food and shelter to the homeless and indigent.
And you haven't actually read the article, have you? The L.A. ordnance basically criminalizes being homeless in public, whether you are sleeping, walking, standing, or sitting.
When are you gonna quit confusing the issue with facts, logic, and good old common sense? 8-)
How you doin', my friend?
Regards
Can you please explain this statement because I can't make heads or tails of it. What 'protection' are the homeless not getting that the rest of us supposedly are? Does the poster mean that those of us with homes are allowed to sleep in parks but those of us without homes aren't?
My take on it is that we are all supposed to be equal under the law. If a bum get arrested for sleeping in the park, then so should I for doing the same thing.
Here's the situation as I see it. In LA they passed a law making it illegal to sleep in public parks. The ACLU aided by the usual suspects sued saying this was un-Constitutional somehow and the 9th Circuit agreed saying that it was a violation of the 8th Amendments prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Now please explain to me how putting someone in jail for violating a duly constituted ordinance against living in public spaces is a 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Because for the life of me I can't see how it is either cruel or unusual.
Maybe if the penalty were keelhauling or being pilloried I could agree, but a simple jail sentence? Spare me.
Yeah I know what a joke. Once again the ACLU is trying to break down society by rewarding those who ruin it. If anything putting them in jail would be a nice thing to do; at least they'd get food and shelter for a little while. If I had nowhere to go, I might purposely get arrested just to take advantage of Le Grande Jail Hotel.
By the way if I were you I'd get the heck out of LA if these are the kind of officials/judges you have to deal with. Vote with your feet.
I suggest you and some other posters on this thread read up on what the Framers had to say about 'charity' when provided by the taxpayer. I think you'll be shocked at what they actually had to say on the subject.
I didn't mean to propose any charity. My personal belief is that government has no business being in that game.
The real issue is the breakdown of society and morals and character. The Americans of our Framers' times were rugged individuals; they did not expect help from anyone else. Did you see that movie "Cinderella Man"? A boxer is down on his luck, and only upon the threat of his family being split apart does he finally take public assistance. And then, when he makes his money back, he goes right back to the office and gives back the money he was given, right back down to the last penny. This is a true story. My father-in-law grew up in a poor neighborhood in Philadelphia and there they had the exact same kind of morals.
Anyway nowadays you have people who have no pride, no self-respect, no gumption to go and fend for themselves.
Actually I did that. I did it several times with quotes from the Framers themselves. It's not my fault you can't seem to understand standard English.
I challenged you to provide me Paragraph and Section (those are the little thingies that separate different parts of the Constitution) that enumerated (there's that big word again) providing shelter and food to people as a Federal responsibility.
As of yet you have been unable to. (that means you failed, couldn't comply with my request, bombed out, fizzled, came up empty)
Here's another quote for you: "The powers of the Federal Government are few and defined." James Madison said that. He's the guy who's often referred to as the 'Father Of The Constitution'. (That means he was really, really, really important)
You're one of those 'the Constitution is a living document' freaks. Right up there with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Ted Kennedy. They feel just the same way you do.
The problem here LF is that you're on the wrong forum. This forum (the one you're yammering away on right now) doesn't support the misbegotten view that the Constitution is a 'living document'. Most folks here hold a diametrically opposed view. (that means we don't agree with you)
The folks who think the Constitution somehow lives and breathes are here. Why don't you wander in over there. You'll find lots of folks who think that mommy Government is responsible for feeding, clothing, housing, burping, and changing diapers.
L
Sad ain't it. There really ought to be some kind of test before Jim let's people post stuff about the Constitution. I don't know, maybe one should have to demonstrate that they've ....oh maybe ....actually read the darned thing at least once.
Anyway, it's good to see you about again. Hows the world treating you?
L
MOST people have no problem with government providing assistance to the poor, and most conservatives believe that if we are going to have to do it, then at least it should be an efficient use of government money. This is my position. I think people need to work and provide for themselves, but when people fall through the cracks there needs to be a safety net there to help them become productive citizens again. The free rider problem is certainly there, but the alternative is just to allow everyone who falls to starve, beg, and die in the streets.
Sorry, pal. There isn't enough funding for private charities to do the job, which takes me back to my original point. If we didn't live in such a cynical and selfish society, we wouldn't need government to help the poor.
The Framers believed the Constitution is a living document as well, that's why they included Article V (that's the article that permits the Constitution to be amended) And indeed, those very Framers did exactly that, two years later with the Bill of Rights (those are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.) There have been 27 in total.
Most people are completely clueless about what the Constitution and the Framers actually had to say on the subject.
It's completely coincidental that you claim to be educated just when I was about to lament the pitiable state of education most people receive (or don't as the case may be) on the subject.
most conservatives believe that if we are going to have to do it
Which is why most 'conservatives' are fools, frauds or both. We don't 'have to do it.' Once you fall into that mindset you cede the intellectual high ground to the enemy.
There isn't enough funding for private charities to do the job,
This statement is absolutely without any basis in fact. You have no statistics to prove such a laughable assertion.
If we didn't live in such a cynical and selfish society, we wouldn't need government to help the poor.
So because you think most people are cynical and selfish you're willing to trash the Constitution to attain your goals. Because you think we're all cynical and selfish you're willing to unleash the power of government with all it's guns, prison cells, and inefficiency on us so you can assuage your troubled little conscience.
Pathetic.
L
And let me make an additional clarifying comment...
Am I advocating federal homeless shelters for people who refuse to take care of themselves? No, NO, HELL NO! My original post stated that it is a shame that there are truly impoverished people in the wealthiest nation on earth, and there is no place for them to go. And it is a shame that a city passed a law that basically made being a homeless person a crime. That is a wasteful use of government resources. They are throwing the homeless in jail when they pose no threat to society.
The ideal solution is for private charities to provide assistance. If they can't, then government should fill in the gaps so that people who want to escape the vicious cycle of poverty are afforded the opportunity to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.