10 ms·
Perhaps we will quit criminalizing the poor. My hopes aren't too high though.
by geggam 8y ago
Perhaps we will quit criminalizing the poor. My hopes aren't too high though.
- TremendousJudge 8y ago"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France
- jquery 8y ago“In its majestic equality, the law forbids men and women alike from rape.” - Anatole France, paraphrased. Should we do away with laws that have unfair application? Or is that quote coming from a place of disingenuousness merely to shut down alternative opinions on the matter of public health?
- yourbandsucks 8y agoI mean.. if you're gonna go there then we need to either provide homes for every homeless person or execute every last one of them. The only alternatives to rampant lawlessness.
- modells 8y agoThe rich corrupt government and steal from medicaid, literally killing people for another yacht... so don't give us that pseudo-mertiocratic tripe.
- badcede 8y agoI believe that was Anatole's point.
- barrow-rider 8y agothatsthejoke.jpg
- supernova87a 8y agoWhy do you make excuses for poverty being a reason to break society's rules? You suggest people who are poor get a more permissive set of rules? How about rich people? Your individual inclination of being charitable isn't a policy for regulating or governing a society successfully. I remember a Facebook acquaintance who decried someone charged with fare evasion on the subway, "because we're criminalizing being poor". What about the poor people who are paying their fare, obeying the law? Why are you forgiving the law breaker, and doing nothing for the law abider? Or actively showing them why following the rules is pointless? Consistently enforcing rules benefits the least advantaged people in society the most. And I agree with the commenter below that the reasoning on display in the court's opinion is really shady. You can be exempt from obeying law because of your circumstances or status? That's really workable? Who decides? What level of criminal act is justifiable for homeless people then? How about using the street as a public toilet? Are they exempt from that too because it's a biological imperative? This is full of holes.
- supernova87a 8y agoAnd by the way, congratulations to the commenters voting down my opinion above because it expresses conservative views. You really are living up to the liberal ideal of censorship when you disagree with an opinion.
- dang 8y agoWould you please stop breaking the site guidelines by going on about downvotes like this? It's off topic, and in the rules for good reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sidlls 8y agoThis is full of holes. Self-reference? If so, agreed. The biggest hole in your comment is that in America, at least, it's possible for a law to be declared invalid in some contexts (e.g. sleeping on the street) but not others (e.g. urinating on it). You dance around this somewhat in your comment, so it's curious you take such a binary view.
- rayiner 8y agoI hope so too. But there is policy, and there is democracy, and democracy is more important than policy. The people of Boise decided how to govern their community. That decision should not be overturned without a compelling constitutional basis.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago>The people of Boise decided how to govern their community. Overturn Citizens United and you may see the people start deciding in other directions that actually benefit the homeless & poor.
- pcwalton 8y agoThe entire idea of a constitution is that policy is sometimes more important than democracy. The people of the city of Boise decided to discriminate against the most vulnerable members of society. That is a failure of democracy, and it's why we have things like the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 8y agoThe Constitution says nothing about how to treat the “most vulnerable.” Voters get to decide how nicely or badly to treat people on the basis of their circumstances. The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment sets certain narrow limits (can’t flay people alive), but those apply to everyone equally. When you strip away the judicial smoke screen, what the ninth circuit really decided is that the lack of available shelter spots should be a defense to liability under vagrancy laws. That’s a great policy. But it has nothing to do with whether the punishment is cruel or unusual. Constitutionally, the people of Boise don’t even have to have any homeless shelters. Whether they do or not is a matter of their on conscience. And whether they do or not, they can still enforce vagrancy laws (which date to the 16th century).
- deleted 8y ago