7 ms·

How much prison time does a person "deserve" for publicly injecting themselves with a chemical? How many more jails or prisons should we build to hold them? How

How much prison time does a person "deserve" for publicly injecting themselves with a chemical? How many more jails or prisons should we build to hold them? How much prison time do they "deserve" for doing it again? What percentage of the unhoused population should we continuously churn through the system? For the criminal justice system to contain this, I suspect you would have to create a large internment system which would something like double the size of U.S. incarceration. As I see it, the system is not failing for a lack of cruelty. But because there is a sizable population who have nothing left to lose.

koolba 4y ago
> How much prison time does a person "deserve" for publicly injecting themselves with a chemical? Long enough that they stop doing it. > How many more jails or prisons should we build to hold them? When the alternative is people literally filling public sidewalks with feces, as many as we need to hold them. > How much prison time do they "deserve" for doing it again? Exponential back off from society would be nice. > What percentage of the unhoused population should we continuously churn through the system? It’s not being homeless that leads one to defecating on the street. It’s mental issues and drug addiction. The homeless who want to live better lives have plenty of opportunity. It’s the fringe class that wants live on the street, rolling from high to high, that are the problem. > For the criminal justice system to contain this, I suspect you would have to create a large internment system which would something like double the size of U.S. incarceration. Probably something on that order. Likely a bit less as it’s about 10K homeless in SF and 125K total incarcerated in CA. Even stretching it state wide it wouldn’t double. Cost wise it would definitely go up, but it’d be distributed across the entire State rather than just the local crime, quality of life, and property value hit that is experienced by the law abiding people in the affected areas. So that seems like a net win.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  While I deeply disagree with you and I recoil at the idea of a system under which a person might spend literal years in prison for taking a shit where they "shouldn't", I respect your honesty. Usually when I pose these kind of questions people lie about their true expectations because they wish for such harsh measures in secret but rather not be associated with them.
  - 0xB31B1B 4y ago
    maybe not prison but a detention and mental health care facility, but yes generally agreed with the above comment. My wife is a dr at a hospital in SF and treats many chronically homeless patients for various issues. There are about 1-2k chronically homeless folks in SF who need treatment against their will/desires (their desires are either to continue drug use until they die or their desires are unintelligible), and the large majority of them will never recover to a point where they will be in a point where they can live outside of an inpatient mental health hospital/detention facility.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      I am not opposed to involuntary treatment. I did not let "A Clockwork Orange" disproportionately shape my world view as it seems so many in the intervening generations have. I grew up with family members who required in-patient mental healthcare more than once. And I understand that letting people persistent in psychosis is not "letting them be themselves". I believe though that making acts which people do in private, severely punishable when performed in public for want of private spaces is a depraved form of puritanical virtue mongering. I don't believe the constitution gives people an absolute right to "virgin eyes" or "virgin ears". And that is a personal judgement you will not convince me of otherwise.
      - hackernews1134 4y ago
        Are you referring to public defection and/or drug use or screaming at the top of one’s lungs for hours at a time? Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views. Hygiene, noise, environmental ordinances and such! We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large. Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything (except in a legal forum) as it is a living document (albeit with a high bar) and more recently demonstrated through overturning judicial rulings.
        DubiousPusher 3y ago
Clubber 4y ago
While I am against our current method of dealing with drugs, hard, lose control of yourself drugs are a scourge on society and the people they infect. Honestly, I would like to see habitual public drug users who get convicted of that sentenced into a red light district of some sort as punishment. The conviction allows the "system" to sentence them against their free will. They are going to do drugs regardless of the threat of jail, but at the same time, the rest of society shouldn't be subjected to their behavior. If nothing else, ignoring it is pretty unsanitary and can lead to disease, etc. Based on this article, it's fairly unsafe as well. The "old" method of jail doesn't work and drug waring has stripped us of so many freedoms, people that came before it probably wouldn't recognize the country. On the other hand, just allowing it to happen isn't a solution either. The only good thing jail does for an addict is forces them to be clean and clear headed for a little while, assuming they aren't smuggled in.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  What about people who do it in private? How vigorously should they be pursued? Should they face the same fate?
  - Clubber 4y ago
    Not in my opinion. If you can do it and don't bother anyone and can keep your shit together, power to you.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      But that's a far cry from, > lose control of yourself drugs are a scourge on society and the people they infect. Is the problem shooting drugs or is it that you might see it happen?
      - dahfizz 3y ago
        In any other city in America: if you got high on meth in your own apartment, went outside and starting screaming, pooping, and acting belligerent, you would be arrested. The problem is the antisocial behavior, homeless or not.

koolba 4y ago

> How much prison time does a person "deserve" for publicly injecting themselves with a chemical? Long enough that they stop doing it. > How many more jails or prisons should we build to hold them? When the alternative is people literally filling public sidewalks with feces, as many as we need to hold them. > How much prison time do they "deserve" for doing it again? Exponential back off from society would be nice. > What percentage of the unhoused population should we continuously churn through the system? It’s not being homeless that leads one to defecating on the street. It’s mental issues and drug addiction. The homeless who want to live better lives have plenty of opportunity. It’s the fringe class that wants live on the street, rolling from high to high, that are the problem. > For the criminal justice system to contain this, I suspect you would have to create a large internment system which would something like double the size of U.S. incarceration. Probably something on that order. Likely a bit less as it’s about 10K homeless in SF and 125K total incarcerated in CA. Even stretching it state wide it wouldn’t double. Cost wise it would definitely go up, but it’d be distributed across the entire State rather than just the local crime, quality of life, and property value hit that is experienced by the law abiding people in the affected areas. So that seems like a net win.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
While I deeply disagree with you and I recoil at the idea of a system under which a person might spend literal years in prison for taking a shit where they "shouldn't", I respect your honesty. Usually when I pose these kind of questions people lie about their true expectations because they wish for such harsh measures in secret but rather not be associated with them.
- 0xB31B1B 4y ago
  maybe not prison but a detention and mental health care facility, but yes generally agreed with the above comment. My wife is a dr at a hospital in SF and treats many chronically homeless patients for various issues. There are about 1-2k chronically homeless folks in SF who need treatment against their will/desires (their desires are either to continue drug use until they die or their desires are unintelligible), and the large majority of them will never recover to a point where they will be in a point where they can live outside of an inpatient mental health hospital/detention facility.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    I am not opposed to involuntary treatment. I did not let "A Clockwork Orange" disproportionately shape my world view as it seems so many in the intervening generations have. I grew up with family members who required in-patient mental healthcare more than once. And I understand that letting people persistent in psychosis is not "letting them be themselves". I believe though that making acts which people do in private, severely punishable when performed in public for want of private spaces is a depraved form of puritanical virtue mongering. I don't believe the constitution gives people an absolute right to "virgin eyes" or "virgin ears". And that is a personal judgement you will not convince me of otherwise.
    - hackernews1134 4y ago
      Are you referring to public defection and/or drug use or screaming at the top of one’s lungs for hours at a time? Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views. Hygiene, noise, environmental ordinances and such! We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large. Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything (except in a legal forum) as it is a living document (albeit with a high bar) and more recently demonstrated through overturning judicial rulings.
      - DubiousPusher 3y ago

Clubber 4y ago

While I am against our current method of dealing with drugs, hard, lose control of yourself drugs are a scourge on society and the people they infect. Honestly, I would like to see habitual public drug users who get convicted of that sentenced into a red light district of some sort as punishment. The conviction allows the "system" to sentence them against their free will. They are going to do drugs regardless of the threat of jail, but at the same time, the rest of society shouldn't be subjected to their behavior. If nothing else, ignoring it is pretty unsanitary and can lead to disease, etc. Based on this article, it's fairly unsafe as well. The "old" method of jail doesn't work and drug waring has stripped us of so many freedoms, people that came before it probably wouldn't recognize the country. On the other hand, just allowing it to happen isn't a solution either. The only good thing jail does for an addict is forces them to be clean and clear headed for a little while, assuming they aren't smuggled in.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
What about people who do it in private? How vigorously should they be pursued? Should they face the same fate?
- Clubber 4y ago
  Not in my opinion. If you can do it and don't bother anyone and can keep your shit together, power to you.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    But that's a far cry from, > lose control of yourself drugs are a scourge on society and the people they infect. Is the problem shooting drugs or is it that you might see it happen?
    - dahfizz 3y ago
      In any other city in America: if you got high on meth in your own apartment, went outside and starting screaming, pooping, and acting belligerent, you would be arrested. The problem is the antisocial behavior, homeless or not.