6 ms·
No, you'd attach a strong punishment to public urination/defecation and then let people be their own judges on whether or not they can handle van dwelling. If
by Trundle 9y ago
No, you'd attach a strong punishment to public urination/defecation and then let people be their own judges on whether or not they can handle van dwelling.
If it's a problem then keep increasing the punishment or ability to catch perpetrators.
- sanswork 9y agoIf a strong punishment doesn't solve the problem why would increasing it help? >ability to catch perpetrators. How do you do this in a way that is affordable to local councils? See this is another non-solution from you. In a perfect world we wouldn't have a problem but a perfect world is the only place where these solutions are going to solve one too.
- Trundle 9y agoWhere is a strong punishment not solving the problem? Increasing it creates fear of consequences. Cameras are cheap. Hell, just a slap a bounty on footage.
- sanswork 9y agoBecause there is already punishments for it and in some places like the US they are already very high(in that they can sometimes get you on sex offender registries). But the problem still exists. Alas just increasing punishment isn't a solution. Especially when the likelihood of catching someone is low. >Cameras are cheap. Paying to have people watch them isn't cheap though and it's not like with a store where you only need to check it when there is an incident you need to watch it all the time. You need people monitoring a lot of cameras all the time.