3 ms·
Yes and no. They said it’s not cruel and unusual punishment to be fined / spend a few days in jail. The real issue should have been intent, but the litigants a
by goodluckchuck 2y ago
Yes and no. They said it’s not cruel and unusual punishment to be fined / spend a few days in jail.
The real issue should have been intent, but the litigants and lower courts didn’t base the case on lack of capacity to comply / lack of mens rea / etc. They wanted a precedent allowing for urban camping even if you’re not homeless.
- Terr_ 2y agoI'm not sure if the plaintiffs' arguments were quite that bad, since the ruling mentions that they raised questions of capacity and "involuntary" situations, ex: > Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense “involuntary,” because some homeless individuals cannot help but do what the law forbids. [...] this Court already rejected it in Powell v. Texas [where] a defendant who had been convicted under a Texas statute making it a crime to “ ‘get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place.’ ” [...] argued that his drunkenness was an “‘involuntary’” byproduct of his status as an alcoholic.