The Supreme Court case that could turn homelessness into a crime

The Supreme Court case Grants Pass v. Johnson could potentially criminalize homelessness and make the criminal justice system harsher. It also raises questions about the extent of judicial power.

Yeah, and some constitutional issues galore, eh?

I see it this way: I would give any homeless person a certain amount of time to get their act together. Say, 6 weeks, or so. If they can't, it means they have alienated all their friends and family, that they no longer have friends, their friends and family have given up on them, and that begs the question, why? Drugs, maybe. Mentally ill, maybe, alcohol, maybe, or some combination of all these-- it's just that these are lost souls, and they need help, the kind that is available in institutions, and, for those who beleive homeless should have rights,

I would say, up to a certain amount of time to get their act together, and if they can't, then they become a public health issue and at that juncture, in my view they forfeit their rights unless the day comes where they are rehabilitated. So I say, give some a few weeks to see if they can end their homelessness (maybe there's some hope, they might have a friend, etc), if not, then round them up and send them to mental hospitals, where they can get the care they desperately need. Thing is, they become a public health issue in the communities they live in and their personal rights do not supercede the right of the community to not live in a neighborhood that is a threat to their health. They are not criminals, most of them, but they are not well, and sick people need care.

Let me just say that in my youth, back in the 60s and 70s, I was homeless twice. But, I was able to end my homelessness rather quickly because I had friends and family to help me. I wasn't a lost soul so I didn't need government help (though I did live on food stamps for a while). This is a tough issue.

When Reagan was governor of California, he curtailed funding in many of the mental hospitals and they were forced to let many of the patients go, greatly increasing homelessness in CA. In 1967, Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which was intended to end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally ill individuals, but this legislation also resulted in making it more difficult to commit people into mental institutions.

I'd be very curious to see how the court rules, but, constitutionally speaking, sounds like a tough issue.

What say you?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...melessness-into-a-crime-explained/ar-BB1lM0v0

The Supreme Court will hear a case later this month that could make life drastically worse for homeless Americans. It also challenges one of the most foundational principles of American criminal law — the rule that someone may not be charged with a crime simply because of who they are.

Six years ago, a federal appeals court held that the Constitution “bars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to.” Under the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. Boise, people without permanent shelter could no longer be arrested simply because they are homeless, at least in the nine western states presided over by the Ninth Circuit.

[...]

Some of the decisions applying Martin have led very prominent Democrats, and institutions led by Democrats, to call upon the Supreme Court to intervene. Both the city of San Francisco and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for example, filed briefs in that Court complaining about a fairly recent decision that, the city’s brief claims, prevents it from clearing out encampments that “present often-intractable health, safety, and welfare challenges for both the City and the public at large.”

 

‘Round them up and send them to mental hospitals to get care’.

Socialism in action huh?

 

How about tackling the reasons for homelessness? There are reasons for people being homeless. Some do it by choice. Some cannot find a job and some are incapable of work. A very large portion of those cannot find a job. There are jobs available, but minimum wage laws prevent employers paying what they can afford to pay.

In short, minimum wage laws are responsible for much of the homeless.

 

If you're going to arrest people and send them to jail where you'll feed, clothe, and house them, why not just feed, clothe, and house them already without the jail?

 

So 7.25 is too high. TOUGH

 

So, to put some context to the OP. The law in question already makes the behavior of homelessness a set of crimes, for which, folks can be charged and fined, and possibly jailed depending on the severity of the offense.

As usual, @Patricio Da Silva fails the basic test of producing an argument in the OP. The case in front of the SCOTUS isn't going to decide whether homelessness, broadly, across the US is illegal. Far from it. it will simply decide that the law from the municipality in question, Grants Pass, has the right to make sleeping in public places a criminal act, or not. So, hand wringing aside, the court is simply reviewing whether local folks through their elected officials can protect themselves from the crime and blight that folks who, for whatever reason, decide that camping on public spaces is their only option can be removed, and possibly charged with a crime.

There is precedent, although, it hasn't ever been reviewed, Martin V Boise said Boise couldn't regulate its public property. So, like every other case that gets a hearing at SCOTUS, this one will simply create whatever the standard will be that enjoins governments and their ability to self determine their own set of laws.

I assume that the current court will rule that governments duly elected by the citizens of their jurisdiction will be allowed to pass laws to protect their citizens. Whether localities, or states, or even the Federal Government will then be responsible to produce their own set of regulations. Just like every other question of public policy.

So, I say, the OP fails as a vehicle except to spread yet more fake and disingenuous tears for an issue that given the right set of circumstances, we know that @Patricio Da Silva would actively support the power of government to do.

 

You expect homeless people to "get their act together" under BIDENOMICS?
That's funny!
Where are they gonna go? Middle classers cant even afford homes anymore thanks to DIRTY JOE, you expect homeless people to be able to pull that off?
Also, agree on the mental institution thing. The decline of those seems synonymous with rise in homelessness. They should have not done that!

 

The only solution to homelessness, is Trump.

Jobs, we need more jobs.
Less illegal immigration, who take jobs and homes, creating more demand for both, increasing homelessness.
Less government, less taxes, less laws, rules and regulations restricting building homes in the big cities.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

 

And you believe that the only President who DESTROYED more jobs in his four hear term than he created is the one to do that, but not the one who is holding unemployment down under 4% for a third consecutive year and has created over 15 million jobs.

Don't give me none of that! Give us the REAL reason why you would vote for an 88 times indicted sexual predator who is out of jail on bail.

 

My reply is in my sig, one of the items in the series applies to your comment.

 

two things

1. The OP wasn't challenging the SC, it merely says it is curious to see what the SC will do.

2. The OP explains posits the view that, once a homeless person's 6 week period of being allowed by the government to end their homelessness on their own, given the public health issue homelessness causes, given teh principle that the public's right to live in an environment that isn't a threat to their health, supercedes the homeless persons constitutional rights, except I will add to it, which I didn't mention, the homeless person, though he or she will be 'rounded up' he or she will still have due process, and be subject to a 5150 examination.

However, if the homeless person cannot end their homelessness within 6 weeks, I would recommend that a proposed ordinance dictate they would fail the 5150. That being said, the homeless person could appeal and request more time, if he or she thinks they have good prospects to end their homelessness, say, another 6 weeks. But, that would be it. If they fail the 5150, the institution's objective would be to rehabilitate, return them to society eventually via a program of rehab (if an addict/alcoholic, etc) and pysche counseling if their are self esteem issues, and other mental issues which cause them to alienate friends and family, to rehab them to a point friends and family would be willing to take them from the hospital.

What do you say to that idea?

 

Everyone should be given a chance to end their homelessness. It's not about expectations, it's about patience.

I've modified my position offered in the OP as follows:

once a homeless person's 6 week period of being allowed by the government to end their homelessness on their own is not successful, given the public health issue homelessness causes, given the principle that the public's right to live in an environment that isn't a threat to their health, supercedes the homeless persons constitutional rights, except I will add to it, which I didn't mention, the homeless person, though he or she will be 'rounded up' he or she will still have due process, and be subject to a 5150 examination, this will be 'due process'.

However, if the homeless person cannot end their homelessness within 6 weeks, I would recommend that a proposed ordinance dictate they would fail the 5150. That being said, the homeless person could appeal and request more time, if he or she thinks they have good prospects to end their homelessness, say, another 6 weeks. But, that would be it. If they fail the 5150, the institution's objective would be to rehabilitate, return them to society eventually via a program of rehab, if an addict/alcoholic, etc, and psyche counseling if their are self esteem issues, and other mental issues which cause them to alienate friends and family, to rehab them to a point friends and family would be willing to take them from the hospital.

Now, there might be some issues I haven't thought of, so I invite replies.

This is a policy recommendation, it would function in any presidential administration, so Biden is irrelevant.

 

Jobs aren't the issue, there is a labor shortage in America. Most homeless have drug/alcohol/psychological issues, etc. and are largely unemployable. Go down to skid row in any big city and talk to them. I have, most are lost souls.

Liberalism didn't cause that, neoliberalism did. Neoliberalism is the cause of rents so high no one can afford to pay rent. Neoliberalism is the cause of home prices so high few can afford to buy a house, unless they bought a house a long time ago, and their equity growth (due to supply and demand ) has hedged them and allowed them to sell it and buy a new house. Neoliberalism took root under Reagan and the neoliberal ship of state has really yet to be turned around due to republicans.

See #11.

 

Neo liberalism a term coined by leftist to camouflage the disaster they have created with near constant increases in minimum wage, rent control, squatters rights laws and their near constant assaults on the middle class and small business people.

 

I liked your post, but not your singling out Reagan for a near mass hysteria that swept the entire country, NY State leading the pack as I recall.

 

That's not correct.

Now then, for your edification:

The term "neoliberalism" is most often associated with a set of economic policies that emphasize free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending. However, the term itself and the ideology have complex origins.

The concept of neoliberalism was first developed in the 1930s by economists and intellectuals, including Alexander Rüstow, who is credited with coining the term. Rüstow used it to describe a new form of liberalism that was distinct from both laissez-faire capitalism and collectivist ideologies.

The aim was to create a middle way that maintained individual freedom while allowing for limited government intervention to ensure stability and prevent monopolies.The ideology was further developed and popularized by economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (who were more libertarian) in the mid-20th century.

These fellows were influential in shaping the policies that came to be associated with neoliberalism, particularly during the late 20th century as governments, notably in the United States under Ronald Reagan and in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, implemented these ideas.

Thus, while Rüstow coined the term, the development and popularization of neoliberalism as a widely recognized economic philosophy were the result of contributions from many thinkers and political figures over several decades.

Capiche?

 

Because he "owns the libs"

The #1 most important reason they like to vote for Trump.

 

Provide some links So I can understand you're thinking

 

Oh.... you mean because Hillary and Biden are being indicted while Trump is out free of any charges after being reelected in 2020? Yep... he sure "owns" them, doesn't he!

Meanwhile, on Earth One....

 

That is an opinion, without links and quotes, it is only an opinion.
Reducing the homeless crisis problems to being solely attributed to neoliberalism is ignorant, if I am being nice.

 

I am sorry, there is not anything to reply to in an unsubstantiated opinion riddled with vitriol and hate.

 

Being from California..
Back in the '70's the ACLU sued the State of Calif for unlawful imprisonment. The agreement between the ACLU, the state, and the court was "they must be released if they can function with minimum supervision." This was a wonderful compromise. Until they were released: (Newspaper headlines ~ Gov. Reagan empties mental patients on the streets). Moving on now...
The supervision never showed up because the legislature didn't/wouldn't budget the staff.
Now The Homeless Industrial Complex funded Prop 1 (in 2024) It passed with 35% of the 22 million ballots sent to "last known address" it was very close, the ballot harvesters were overworked, and after two weeks was dragged across the line with "signature verifications, AKA ballot curing".
So now they have even more money and not a nickel for cops.
What the state is doing is building free housing in California on the taxpayers dime to get them off the streets and out of sight, but they just keep coming! For some reason it has become "Come for the weather, stay for the free stuff": Phones, ATM cards, unemployment, help getting SS disability, food, medical care and drugs. And each other.
If they ever get the crazy off the streets, I'll let you know.

 

You have this situation backward. To read your words, one would MISTAKENLY get the impression that it was never legal to ban people from camping wherever they want, and that this is an attempt to reverse that situation. For you to act as if this newly criminalizes homelessness is bereft of reality.

In reality, communities already have that legal right, and it was a liberal appeals court ( the infamous extremely liberal 9th circuit that is routinely overturned more than any other circuit) that determined that this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. That liberal appeals court will beyond any doubt be overturned here and the status quo will remain.

This is not about jailing homeless people indefinitely, it is instead about controlling where they live. If people are allowed to "camp" wherever they like, you then have problems that you see now in San Francisco with homeless people overtaking nice parts of the city. If you are allowed to arrest people and jail them for a few nights for camping where they are not wanted, you can control where they live which is the sole goal of this type of law. A community should have every right to control where homeless people live. You obviously cannot eliminate the existence of homeless people, but you should beyond any doubt be able to funnel them to underpasses or some other less populated area where civilized society does not have to deal with their defecation and drug needles on the sidewalks.

To call the controlling of people sleeping on community property cruel and unusual punishment has zero chance of being upheld. This is nothing more than yet another example of liberal activism run amok.

 

Thanks for the confirmation. What we have now is the result of leftists and corporatists throwing monkey wrenches at reality in a vain attempt to force people to accept the rule of people whose governing philosophy lies some where between There is nothing so bad that we can't make it worse or we must constantly reinvent the wheel and if afterwards it takes three men and a mule to make it roll at least it will be more equitable.

 

I've been giving this issue more thought, and it's far too complex than what we can discuss in a forum like this.