5 ms·

They're not saying the people are exempt from obeying the law, they're saying the law is wrong. If there's no room in shelters and someone has no home to sleep

They're not saying the people are exempt from obeying the law, they're saying the law is wrong. If there's no room in shelters and someone has no home to sleep in or money for a hotel, what are they supposed to do? That's not a rhetorical question, what are they supposed to do? Go to jail? We already have laws against public indecency that cops are supposed to enforce but criminalizing the act of sleeping when you have no other choice is what this is about.

gamblor956 8y ago
Do you honestly believe that someone is better on the streets, exposed to the weather, without access to restroom facilities, food, or healthcare, than in a facility where they get all of that?
- pmiller2 8y ago
  If that facility is a jail, then possibly yes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- MattGrommes 8y ago
  No, I absolutely believe they should have access to all of that instead of sleeping on the streets. But I also absolutely know jail is not that place. See other comments about the quality of jail facilities or talk to somebody who has spent time in jail. This wouldn't be an issue if there were enough shelters for everyone who wanted to be in a facility.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    As a former public defender, I've actually visited every jail and prison in California. They're not shitholes. Some, like Chino, or even downright luxurious compared to living in a trailer park like the kinds you would find in Appalachia or on a reservation. I agree that non-incarceration facilities would be preferable. But as a person who has actually represented the homeless I am 100% certain that a large number of the homeless would refuse to live in a homeless shelter if it meant giving up booze and drugs.
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      I don't think putting homeless people in jail is intended to help them.
      - modells 8y ago
        That's an understatement. Locking people away simply because others don't like them sounds a lot like, I don't know, a non-Godwin's law exception. It's disturbing when people even rhetorically-suggest breaking with common decency and dogwhistle encourage strong-man fascism.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      I am 100% certain that a large number of the homeless would refuse to live in a homeless shelter if it meant giving up booze and drugs. Those are typically being used to self medicate for a legitimate issue, probably a biological issue. Substitute their prescription medication for their deadly condition and see how you feel then about the idea of requiring them to give it up. They may or may not have a proper diagnosis. I don't think that is relevant. When we know for certain how to completely and reliably cure addiction and mental health issues and reliably identify all health issues in a speedy fashion, then I might have some sympathy for such an attitude. But we aren't there yet.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Alcohol, to my knowledge, is not self medication for a legitimate issue. What deadly condition do they have that requires "booze and drugs"?
        DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Most people on the street have either a medical issue or mental health issue. Some of the drugs used to treat mental health issues have terrible, terrible side effects. Some people with those conditions would rather drink or use street drugs because the side effects are less objectionable. If your mental health issues have utterly ruined your life to the point where you are homeless, that fact can help make you suicidal. To the degree that mental health issues can lead to suicide, I think it is reasonable to suggest they can be deadly. Alcohol also kills germs. I loathe alcohol. I had a nightcap pretty much daily for about a year while doctors acted like I was crazy and failed to figure out how to treat my condition. I began getting better. I stopped drinking alcohol when I found other treatments that worked better. I'm convinced I would have died had I not consumed alcohol for a year. I knew someone briefly with a mental health issue who lived in fear of winding up homeless. She also drank alcohol very heavily for a time and felt enormous guilt about it. But she had surgery for something at some point and when they opened her up, they discovered some badly infected organ. They removed it and marveled at the fact that she wasn't dead. I think her heavy drinking saved her life. After that surgery, she was able to get clean and sober, in spite of her mental health diagnosis.
- ibn_ibid 8y ago
  Shelters only have so many beds, not to mention many are already overcrowded and rife with violence
- taurath 8y ago
  I think what they meant was in case none of those are available, they shouldn't be penalized.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  I believe people are better off when they have shelter, food, healthcare, access to healthcare facilities, and so on. In addition, those lodging should be secure so the person's belongings are safe when they go about their day. I'd like people to be able to store and cook food safely as well. This doesn't really describe jail. Jail is designed to punish people, and all too often, to hold people suspected of crimes. We have rape jokes about jails. Access to healthcare seems to be missing, especially if you have issues with mental health. You really cannot have belongings: For someone homeless, that could mean they don't have belongings later on, even if they were only held for a short time. If you happen to be a homeless person that works (yes, they exist), it also means you probably just lost your job.
- tarboreus 8y ago
  Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  False dichotomy. Could make a similar (false) comparison between killing them outright, and letting them continue suffering as they do.
nivexous 8y ago
Allow them to sell their citizenship. I'm serious.
throwaway917100 8y ago
I sympathize with them but a simple answer to your question is , leaving the city is an option. Technically people have options to leave the city if the cost of living is high enough that they cannot afford rent. This will be the first argument against the "law is wrong". I personally believe based on how US laws and public opinion works is that its better for them to leave the city and start somewhere the cost of living is not that high and they can get some kind of job (even if it is low paying).
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  leaving the city is an option. I travelled to San Diego when I was first homeless because that's where the soup kitchens and homeless services are. It was possible to eat every day. Most small towns don't have the resources to provide such services to the homeless. If you are completely indigent, the nearest big city is your best bet for finding some kind of help. We need to fix affordable housing and health care in the US. Those two things would go a long way towards reducing this issue. But no one wants to do that and most Americans see zero connection between the lack of affordable housing and the high numbers of homeless people, which just flabbergasts me.
  - throwaway917100 8y ago
    My worry with affordable housing in cities is that either it will turn into a corruption filed lottery system or they will turn into modern ghettoes. I think it's better to turn away homeless people away from cities and into places where cost of living is more reasonable and they can find some kind of job to bootstrap off (not by law but through incentives ). Yes, I agree most of the homeless services being in the city is a problem, which funnels people towards the city, where chances of getting affordable housing is becoming slim day by day.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      The problem with your theory is the cities are where the jobs are, plus affordable housing is in general short supply. I find it very frustrating to keep running into comments like this on HN. I was willing to go almost anywhere in the Western US to get off the street. There are damn few places that aren't senior housing, aren't trailers, aren't the absolute muddle of nowhere where it would be along drive to even get groceries (thereby adding to the expense of living there because you need a car, etc) and can be had for under $500 per month. Even small towns aren't that cheap. I would like to actively foster the development of online incomes in small towns and rural areas. The internet savvy people are also mostly in the big cities and many rural places lack high speed internet. If we could somehow supply good internet to such areas and help people earn money online so that the lack of good jobs isn't an issue, now you are talking about a real solution. But most of the people saying that homeless folks need to just move someplace cheap aren't talking about helping them make money online. They are just ignoring the fact that these people simply cannot currently get their needs met at all outside of the big city and are being arrested for being in the big city where services are. I run a bunch of websites. I can't get Patreon support sufficient to let me develop them full time. I didn't get the economic development job I applied for last December. I think I have actual workable solutions that don't just throw people to the wolves. And I can't get traction because basically no one really wants this solved. They just want to blame the homeless and not actually work on real solutions. There is a nationwide shortage of affordable housing. This is not unique to big cities. So sending people to small towns with no services and poor job prospects isn't currently a fix. And it is starting to make me spit nails to hear that. Meanwhile, tech giants want to eliminate like 80 percent of jobs and replace it with UBI. Then articles that state that in the first paragraph fail to actually explore this dystopian vision and, instead, wax eloquent about how do gooder social workers will live so much better with UBI to supplement their underpaid job. They don't actually get into what life looks like if we hand everyone $10k annually with no hope of ever having a job again because robots are doing everything. And people wonder why I'm suicidal so much of the time. Good god.

gamblor956 8y ago

Do you honestly believe that someone is better on the streets, exposed to the weather, without access to restroom facilities, food, or healthcare, than in a facility where they get all of that?

pmiller2 8y ago
If that facility is a jail, then possibly yes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MattGrommes 8y ago
No, I absolutely believe they should have access to all of that instead of sleeping on the streets. But I also absolutely know jail is not that place. See other comments about the quality of jail facilities or talk to somebody who has spent time in jail. This wouldn't be an issue if there were enough shelters for everyone who wanted to be in a facility.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  As a former public defender, I've actually visited every jail and prison in California. They're not shitholes. Some, like Chino, or even downright luxurious compared to living in a trailer park like the kinds you would find in Appalachia or on a reservation. I agree that non-incarceration facilities would be preferable. But as a person who has actually represented the homeless I am 100% certain that a large number of the homeless would refuse to live in a homeless shelter if it meant giving up booze and drugs.
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    I don't think putting homeless people in jail is intended to help them.
    - modells 8y ago
      That's an understatement. Locking people away simply because others don't like them sounds a lot like, I don't know, a non-Godwin's law exception. It's disturbing when people even rhetorically-suggest breaking with common decency and dogwhistle encourage strong-man fascism.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I am 100% certain that a large number of the homeless would refuse to live in a homeless shelter if it meant giving up booze and drugs. Those are typically being used to self medicate for a legitimate issue, probably a biological issue. Substitute their prescription medication for their deadly condition and see how you feel then about the idea of requiring them to give it up. They may or may not have a proper diagnosis. I don't think that is relevant. When we know for certain how to completely and reliably cure addiction and mental health issues and reliably identify all health issues in a speedy fashion, then I might have some sympathy for such an attitude. But we aren't there yet.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Alcohol, to my knowledge, is not self medication for a legitimate issue. What deadly condition do they have that requires "booze and drugs"?
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Most people on the street have either a medical issue or mental health issue. Some of the drugs used to treat mental health issues have terrible, terrible side effects. Some people with those conditions would rather drink or use street drugs because the side effects are less objectionable. If your mental health issues have utterly ruined your life to the point where you are homeless, that fact can help make you suicidal. To the degree that mental health issues can lead to suicide, I think it is reasonable to suggest they can be deadly. Alcohol also kills germs. I loathe alcohol. I had a nightcap pretty much daily for about a year while doctors acted like I was crazy and failed to figure out how to treat my condition. I began getting better. I stopped drinking alcohol when I found other treatments that worked better. I'm convinced I would have died had I not consumed alcohol for a year. I knew someone briefly with a mental health issue who lived in fear of winding up homeless. She also drank alcohol very heavily for a time and felt enormous guilt about it. But she had surgery for something at some point and when they opened her up, they discovered some badly infected organ. They removed it and marveled at the fact that she wasn't dead. I think her heavy drinking saved her life. After that surgery, she was able to get clean and sober, in spite of her mental health diagnosis.
ibn_ibid 8y ago
Shelters only have so many beds, not to mention many are already overcrowded and rife with violence
taurath 8y ago
I think what they meant was in case none of those are available, they shouldn't be penalized.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
I believe people are better off when they have shelter, food, healthcare, access to healthcare facilities, and so on. In addition, those lodging should be secure so the person's belongings are safe when they go about their day. I'd like people to be able to store and cook food safely as well. This doesn't really describe jail. Jail is designed to punish people, and all too often, to hold people suspected of crimes. We have rape jokes about jails. Access to healthcare seems to be missing, especially if you have issues with mental health. You really cannot have belongings: For someone homeless, that could mean they don't have belongings later on, even if they were only held for a short time. If you happen to be a homeless person that works (yes, they exist), it also means you probably just lost your job.
tarboreus 8y ago
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
False dichotomy. Could make a similar (false) comparison between killing them outright, and letting them continue suffering as they do.

nivexous 8y ago

Allow them to sell their citizenship. I'm serious.

throwaway917100 8y ago

I sympathize with them but a simple answer to your question is , leaving the city is an option. Technically people have options to leave the city if the cost of living is high enough that they cannot afford rent. This will be the first argument against the "law is wrong". I personally believe based on how US laws and public opinion works is that its better for them to leave the city and start somewhere the cost of living is not that high and they can get some kind of job (even if it is low paying).

DoreenMichele 8y ago
leaving the city is an option. I travelled to San Diego when I was first homeless because that's where the soup kitchens and homeless services are. It was possible to eat every day. Most small towns don't have the resources to provide such services to the homeless. If you are completely indigent, the nearest big city is your best bet for finding some kind of help. We need to fix affordable housing and health care in the US. Those two things would go a long way towards reducing this issue. But no one wants to do that and most Americans see zero connection between the lack of affordable housing and the high numbers of homeless people, which just flabbergasts me.
- throwaway917100 8y ago
  My worry with affordable housing in cities is that either it will turn into a corruption filed lottery system or they will turn into modern ghettoes. I think it's better to turn away homeless people away from cities and into places where cost of living is more reasonable and they can find some kind of job to bootstrap off (not by law but through incentives ). Yes, I agree most of the homeless services being in the city is a problem, which funnels people towards the city, where chances of getting affordable housing is becoming slim day by day.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    The problem with your theory is the cities are where the jobs are, plus affordable housing is in general short supply. I find it very frustrating to keep running into comments like this on HN. I was willing to go almost anywhere in the Western US to get off the street. There are damn few places that aren't senior housing, aren't trailers, aren't the absolute muddle of nowhere where it would be along drive to even get groceries (thereby adding to the expense of living there because you need a car, etc) and can be had for under $500 per month. Even small towns aren't that cheap. I would like to actively foster the development of online incomes in small towns and rural areas. The internet savvy people are also mostly in the big cities and many rural places lack high speed internet. If we could somehow supply good internet to such areas and help people earn money online so that the lack of good jobs isn't an issue, now you are talking about a real solution. But most of the people saying that homeless folks need to just move someplace cheap aren't talking about helping them make money online. They are just ignoring the fact that these people simply cannot currently get their needs met at all outside of the big city and are being arrested for being in the big city where services are. I run a bunch of websites. I can't get Patreon support sufficient to let me develop them full time. I didn't get the economic development job I applied for last December. I think I have actual workable solutions that don't just throw people to the wolves. And I can't get traction because basically no one really wants this solved. They just want to blame the homeless and not actually work on real solutions. There is a nationwide shortage of affordable housing. This is not unique to big cities. So sending people to small towns with no services and poor job prospects isn't currently a fix. And it is starting to make me spit nails to hear that. Meanwhile, tech giants want to eliminate like 80 percent of jobs and replace it with UBI. Then articles that state that in the first paragraph fail to actually explore this dystopian vision and, instead, wax eloquent about how do gooder social workers will live so much better with UBI to supplement their underpaid job. They don't actually get into what life looks like if we hand everyone $10k annually with no hope of ever having a job again because robots are doing everything. And people wonder why I'm suicidal so much of the time. Good god.