5 ms·

> 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 o

by 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 4y ago
        > Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views. So why such a consistent obsession with making them stop or tolerating these acts done in private. If public health is the concern wouldn't needle exchanges, public toilets and street cleaning would be practical solutions? (I guess I should say Victorian rather than Puritanical.) > We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large. Which ones? > Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything As far as I knew it was the basic document which outlined how rights between people and between people and the star should be balanced. And while it has a lot to say about rights to liberty, I find little to indicate we have a right to not see unpleasant things in public. I don't think the status quo is good. I don't like avoiding shit on the sidewalk. I don't like explaining to my son why a man is stupified with a needle sticking out of his arm. But I weigh those unpleasant events against throwing people against the system and taking their freedom and it's clear to me that their right to liberty outweighs my right to a pleasant Sunday stroll. I think there is a moral imperative to change but I think turning once again towards creating a heartless state bureaucracy and pitting it against people who have absolutely nothing is not the change we need. I know that these people have been kicked over and over and over again and that to keep kicking is not a thing that makes sense. They are numb to the pain and you will not change them. You will only show how hard you can kick.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > literal years in prison for taking a shit where they "shouldn't" No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying. Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context. And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced. > such harsh measures in secret Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures? Some people try to raise children without rules and they always do more harm than good. Especially trying to avoid such simple rules about reasonable boundaries.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    > No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying. In reply to the issue of how we should be punishing "petty" street crimes, the commenter I was replying to said, > An exponential back off from society In my experience, exponentials grow pretty quickly. So yeah, it kinda seems like that's what they were implying. > Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context. Give me the context in which pooping anywhere, any number of times seems reasonable to punish with significant jail time. Yes, there should be some form of discouragement from this but making sure people have access to a toilet seems a lot easier. > And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced. Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work. > Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures? Yeah, I actually believe depriving people of their freedom of movement is a really big deal.
    - 0xB31B1B 4y ago
      "Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work." The chronically homeless drug addicts of san francisco that everyone is concerned with are beyond helping. For the worst 1-10% that stir up all of the news and fears, the solution here is not a treatment plan and release back to society. These folks should not go to solitarty confinement, or even a normal jail, but we absolutely need a long term mental health detention facility process for these folks. Many of these people (1) cause a huge negative impact to everyone around them through their antisocial behavior (2) have a huge cost to society through their consumption of public resources like 911 calls, police/fire/emergency room visits street cleaning of shit (3) these people absolutely refuse any voluntary treatment options up to and including supportive housing that allows drugs and alcohol. They don't want to live in apartments, they don't really even have the concept of agency that we understand, they are so far gone that they need to be cared for by the state in a higher capacity then they are right now.

by koolba 4y ago

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 4y ago
      > Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views. So why such a consistent obsession with making them stop or tolerating these acts done in private. If public health is the concern wouldn't needle exchanges, public toilets and street cleaning would be practical solutions? (I guess I should say Victorian rather than Puritanical.) > We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large. Which ones? > Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything As far as I knew it was the basic document which outlined how rights between people and between people and the star should be balanced. And while it has a lot to say about rights to liberty, I find little to indicate we have a right to not see unpleasant things in public. I don't think the status quo is good. I don't like avoiding shit on the sidewalk. I don't like explaining to my son why a man is stupified with a needle sticking out of his arm. But I weigh those unpleasant events against throwing people against the system and taking their freedom and it's clear to me that their right to liberty outweighs my right to a pleasant Sunday stroll. I think there is a moral imperative to change but I think turning once again towards creating a heartless state bureaucracy and pitting it against people who have absolutely nothing is not the change we need. I know that these people have been kicked over and over and over again and that to keep kicking is not a thing that makes sense. They are numb to the pain and you will not change them. You will only show how hard you can kick.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> literal years in prison for taking a shit where they "shouldn't" No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying. Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context. And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced. > such harsh measures in secret Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures? Some people try to raise children without rules and they always do more harm than good. Especially trying to avoid such simple rules about reasonable boundaries.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  > No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying. In reply to the issue of how we should be punishing "petty" street crimes, the commenter I was replying to said, > An exponential back off from society In my experience, exponentials grow pretty quickly. So yeah, it kinda seems like that's what they were implying. > Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context. Give me the context in which pooping anywhere, any number of times seems reasonable to punish with significant jail time. Yes, there should be some form of discouragement from this but making sure people have access to a toilet seems a lot easier. > And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced. Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work. > Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures? Yeah, I actually believe depriving people of their freedom of movement is a really big deal.
  - 0xB31B1B 4y ago
    "Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work." The chronically homeless drug addicts of san francisco that everyone is concerned with are beyond helping. For the worst 1-10% that stir up all of the news and fears, the solution here is not a treatment plan and release back to society. These folks should not go to solitarty confinement, or even a normal jail, but we absolutely need a long term mental health detention facility process for these folks. Many of these people (1) cause a huge negative impact to everyone around them through their antisocial behavior (2) have a huge cost to society through their consumption of public resources like 911 calls, police/fire/emergency room visits street cleaning of shit (3) these people absolutely refuse any voluntary treatment options up to and including supportive housing that allows drugs and alcohol. They don't want to live in apartments, they don't really even have the concept of agency that we understand, they are so far gone that they need to be cared for by the state in a higher capacity then they are right now.