6 ms·

This is so on point. I can not stand how little the police does to address the entirely open air drug sales and use, indecent exposure, and plethora of public s

This is so on point. I can not stand how little the police does to address the entirely open air drug sales and use, indecent exposure, and plethora of public safety issues (shattered glass bottles, prostitution, trespassing, selling stolen goods like bicycles) because the perpetrators are homeless. I’m not saying punish homelessness, I’m saying enforce existing laws regardless of who the perps are.

post_break 8y ago
Do you think it has to do with generating income? Like if someone is homeless the odds of getting them to pay a fine is next to nothing. But snag a guy walking out of a bar pissing on the wall you're going to get some money out of it.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  Probably as much to do with the revolving door as it does with generating income. If you have a home / money, a fine or brief jail time are punishment. If you don't have home / money, you won't pay a fine, your time and lack of freedom won't solve an addiction brought on by being desolate. So, a month later, a cop has wasted hours, a judge has wasted hours, and the "criminal" still can't pay the fine, is still addicted, and will waste that same time again. tldr; A fine of $50 for someone who doesn't have money to eat is in ways as inconceivable as a $1bln fine to someone in the middle class.
  - post_break 8y ago
    Sorry I don't understand your comment?
    - smileysteve 8y ago
      The purpose of a fine for doing something illegal is supposed to be corrective. If a person can not pay the fine, if they're not further inconvenienced by being arrested and sent to hours until jail; the effective corrective action is being applied to the judge, police; They can arrest the same homeless, mentally ill, drug addicted person each day; or put them in prison where they don't belong -- or they can fine/arrest violent offenders or people who are "corrected" by a jail time or fine.
      - rbanffy 8y ago
        It's a good point. Punishment in the form of losing something does not work on someone who lost everything.
        smileysteve 8y ago
        You're correct. deterrent is the correct word.
      - clairity 8y ago
        > "The purpose of a fine for doing something illegal is supposed to be corrective." that's almost certainly not true. a fine is primarily a deterrent, and failing that, is punitive. it's not corrective (or restorative), because it doesn't "correct" anything. an example of corrective action is a burglar being required to return/replace stolen items.
        paulgrant999 8y ago
        s/deterrant/punitive/corrective/coercive/g. fixed that for you.
        cannonedhamster 8y ago
        Punitive actions are meant to correct the aberrant behavior by acting as a deterrent. The end goal of anything in criminal justice is to make the victim whole, and if that is not possible to deter future crimes of that type. This is why there are limits to how cruel we are allowed to be, as cruelty for vengeance sake is no more effective than is securing an individual who is very likely to continue their behavior.
    - donclark 8y ago
      Yeah, it sounds like he was going somewhere - or have a point, but lost it - or thought they finished but didnt. The question is, so what penalty for a homeless person would help them to re-align their values (or help rehabilitate them)?
kakarot 8y ago
This is a complicated issue because the Drug War is inherently discriminatory, and asking for our government to enforce these laws will always lead to discriminatory practices. All of the other issues definitely need to be addressed, however.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  I was homeless as a teen for a short time. I guarantee you that there are moral/ethical homeless people that don't steal or attack people. (even when high) So, I can say wholeheartedly it's not discriminatory against homeless or the disaffected, it's discriminates based on behaviour. Period. If law breaking behaviour (theft, assault, etc...) exists most prominently in addicted homeless people, that shouldn't be surprising nor ignored. And it certainly shouldn't negate the laws of the land.
  - marnett 8y ago
    It's discriminatory against the poor, not the homeless
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      I've been poor most of my life. It's not discriminatory against the poor at all. I lived in a van with my wife, and we didn't steal. There were people in the parks that would steal, and the police would come after them, not us. I speak from life experience. You are helping spread a deadly lie. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. Go be genuinely poor, it's really easy to do. Just use a tiny amount of money to live off of. And see if it causes you to commit crimes. Move to a single room apartment, or be homeless. It does not make you immoral or unethical or cause you to mug people or steal.
      - bllguo 8y ago
        You seem to be taking this personally. I don't see how your personal experiences address the claim that the poor are disproportionately inclined to commit petty crimes
hithereagain 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.
- Natsu 8y ago
  That doesn't respond to the 'public safety issues' the GP was discussing. Being on the streets is a spectrum of bad luck and bad choices. Yes, that means there are generally examples of people who are mostly one or mostly the other and plenty in between. Usually what happens is a few things go wrong at the same time from either category and life spirals out of control. The problem is that it's hard to get people back on their feet again and the criminal justice system is quite terrible at it in general, but that doesn't mean that people never learning that there are consequences for their actions is a good thing, either. Part of the problem is that various criminal societies have developed and need to be dismantled so as not to self-perpetuate the harm they cause to others.

post_break 8y ago

Do you think it has to do with generating income? Like if someone is homeless the odds of getting them to pay a fine is next to nothing. But snag a guy walking out of a bar pissing on the wall you're going to get some money out of it.

smileysteve 8y ago
Probably as much to do with the revolving door as it does with generating income. If you have a home / money, a fine or brief jail time are punishment. If you don't have home / money, you won't pay a fine, your time and lack of freedom won't solve an addiction brought on by being desolate. So, a month later, a cop has wasted hours, a judge has wasted hours, and the "criminal" still can't pay the fine, is still addicted, and will waste that same time again. tldr; A fine of $50 for someone who doesn't have money to eat is in ways as inconceivable as a $1bln fine to someone in the middle class.
- post_break 8y ago
  Sorry I don't understand your comment?
  - smileysteve 8y ago
    The purpose of a fine for doing something illegal is supposed to be corrective. If a person can not pay the fine, if they're not further inconvenienced by being arrested and sent to hours until jail; the effective corrective action is being applied to the judge, police; They can arrest the same homeless, mentally ill, drug addicted person each day; or put them in prison where they don't belong -- or they can fine/arrest violent offenders or people who are "corrected" by a jail time or fine.
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      It's a good point. Punishment in the form of losing something does not work on someone who lost everything.
      - smileysteve 8y ago
        You're correct. deterrent is the correct word.
    - clairity 8y ago
      > "The purpose of a fine for doing something illegal is supposed to be corrective." that's almost certainly not true. a fine is primarily a deterrent, and failing that, is punitive. it's not corrective (or restorative), because it doesn't "correct" anything. an example of corrective action is a burglar being required to return/replace stolen items.
      - paulgrant999 8y ago
        s/deterrant/punitive/corrective/coercive/g. fixed that for you.
      - cannonedhamster 8y ago
        Punitive actions are meant to correct the aberrant behavior by acting as a deterrent. The end goal of anything in criminal justice is to make the victim whole, and if that is not possible to deter future crimes of that type. This is why there are limits to how cruel we are allowed to be, as cruelty for vengeance sake is no more effective than is securing an individual who is very likely to continue their behavior.
  - donclark 8y ago
    Yeah, it sounds like he was going somewhere - or have a point, but lost it - or thought they finished but didnt. The question is, so what penalty for a homeless person would help them to re-align their values (or help rehabilitate them)?

kakarot 8y ago

This is a complicated issue because the Drug War is inherently discriminatory, and asking for our government to enforce these laws will always lead to discriminatory practices. All of the other issues definitely need to be addressed, however.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
I was homeless as a teen for a short time. I guarantee you that there are moral/ethical homeless people that don't steal or attack people. (even when high) So, I can say wholeheartedly it's not discriminatory against homeless or the disaffected, it's discriminates based on behaviour. Period. If law breaking behaviour (theft, assault, etc...) exists most prominently in addicted homeless people, that shouldn't be surprising nor ignored. And it certainly shouldn't negate the laws of the land.
- marnett 8y ago
  It's discriminatory against the poor, not the homeless
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    I've been poor most of my life. It's not discriminatory against the poor at all. I lived in a van with my wife, and we didn't steal. There were people in the parks that would steal, and the police would come after them, not us. I speak from life experience. You are helping spread a deadly lie. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. Go be genuinely poor, it's really easy to do. Just use a tiny amount of money to live off of. And see if it causes you to commit crimes. Move to a single room apartment, or be homeless. It does not make you immoral or unethical or cause you to mug people or steal.
    - bllguo 8y ago
      You seem to be taking this personally. I don't see how your personal experiences address the claim that the poor are disproportionately inclined to commit petty crimes

hithereagain 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.

Natsu 8y ago
That doesn't respond to the 'public safety issues' the GP was discussing. Being on the streets is a spectrum of bad luck and bad choices. Yes, that means there are generally examples of people who are mostly one or mostly the other and plenty in between. Usually what happens is a few things go wrong at the same time from either category and life spirals out of control. The problem is that it's hard to get people back on their feet again and the criminal justice system is quite terrible at it in general, but that doesn't mean that people never learning that there are consequences for their actions is a good thing, either. Part of the problem is that various criminal societies have developed and need to be dismantled so as not to self-perpetuate the harm they cause to others.