A bigger problem, however, is that it presupposes homelessness as a crime, because the Eighth Amendment is meant to protect criminal defendants from cruel and unusual punishment. So, by arguing this case on Eighth Amendment grounds, the unhoused are already considered criminal defendants, in which case imprisonment is neither cruel nor unusual.
Incarceration isn’t always reasonable for an offense. If I park illegally, surely imprisoning me is excessive, and thus cruel and unusual. A fine would be appropriate in this case. That sounds like precisely the type of thing an unhoused person could be charged with, and imprisoning someone because they’re sleeping in a car or on a bench or something should be considered “cruel and unusual,” and instead they should be issued a fine (consistent with their ability to pay) if they don’t move along when requested.
To the larger problem though, I don’t agree with this statement (immediately precedes the above quote):
The problem with this particular Eighth Amendment argument is that being unhoused is in and of itself cruel, and it should be unusual.
There are plenty of unhoused people who prefer to live that way for whatever reason. So not having housing is not, by itself, cruel and unusual. I also don’t believe anyone should be obligated to provide housing for someone who is not housed (whether by choice or by inability to pay).
That said, I do think providing housing to those who are willing to live by a certain set of rules is absolutely in society’s interests. I love independent housing initiatives like this one, and I think we should be investing a lot into these homes. Sometimes all someone needs is a roof and a locking door to get back on their feet, and we should absolutely make that available to anyone who is willing to live peacefully in the community (whatever they do behind their closed door is obviously their business). It’s absolutely heartbreaking reading stories like this when there are relatively affordable options to solve the problem.
I’ve never once met an unhoused human who stated they prefer life on the street. I have met some unhouse folks who made the choice, but this always aligned with living the van life, backpacking, or some drawn out international trips. Regardless, homelessness increased 12% last year. This is a massive increase and I’d bet the vast majority didn’t want this to take place as their hand was forced due to cost of living increases. In addition, nearly half of the homeless population is employed in the states, which is bonkers.
While I hear what you’re saying, it’s equivalent to claiming wewe shouldn’t cure cancer cause some people choose cancer by smoking. In other words, while there are select few unhoused individuals who choose the path, a vast majority wish they had a home and feel abandoned by society. Especially as it becomes increasingly more “illegal” to be unable to afford rent on top of groceries, medical care, and transportation cost. The recent cost increases also make paying a fine instead of going to jail more unobtainable. It’s a vicious cycle being homeless, as no address prevents one from opening a bank account and also makes finding a better job very difficult.
Oh sure, those that don’t want permanent shelter are certainly in the minority. I’m just saying the goal shouldn’t be to put everyone in a shelter (i.e. outlaw lack of shelter), but to have enough shelter options that everyone has access should they choose to.
I’m certainly no expert here, I’ve only volunteered with a handful of outreach groups and done some research.
It’s a vicious cycle being homeless, as no address prevents one from opening a bank account and also makes finding a better job very difficult.
I totally agree. Another issue is having your address be a halfway house or shelter, employers know those addresses and ignore those applications.
Ideally we’d build a ton of tiny houses for those who want shelter, and have the addresses be PO boxes to reduce discrimination. Things like drug rehab should be offered, but never required, and imo there should be a nominal payment expected so tenants feel like they are contributing (perhaps free for 6 months, then something like $20-50/month, with lots of forgiveness). The structures should be big enough to be comfortable, but not so nice as to discourage moving out once they have the means.
But these housing arrangements need to be voluntary. If we force people to live there, it’s not going to work. I know you’re not suggesting that, but I’ve heard enough people push for something like that. Being unsheltered needs to be an option, but it should never be the only option.
Why aren’t PO boxes free for the unhoused? Your comment made me think that would be a relatively cheap, and uncontroversial, way to help people gain employment.
Edit: obviously we should do more,more just curious why we don’t already do this
That makes a lot more sense, thanks for the clarification! Housing options and OS telemetry both should 100% be optional! Sorry for the random comparison, I’m just a privacy and security nerd lol
Incarceration isn’t always reasonable for an offense. If I park illegally, surely imprisoning me is excessive, and thus cruel and unusual. A fine would be appropriate in this case. That sounds like precisely the type of thing an unhoused person could be charged with, and imprisoning someone because they’re sleeping in a car or on a bench or something should be considered “cruel and unusual,” and instead they should be issued a fine (consistent with their ability to pay) if they don’t move along when requested.
To the larger problem though, I don’t agree with this statement (immediately precedes the above quote):
There are plenty of unhoused people who prefer to live that way for whatever reason. So not having housing is not, by itself, cruel and unusual. I also don’t believe anyone should be obligated to provide housing for someone who is not housed (whether by choice or by inability to pay).
That said, I do think providing housing to those who are willing to live by a certain set of rules is absolutely in society’s interests. I love independent housing initiatives like this one, and I think we should be investing a lot into these homes. Sometimes all someone needs is a roof and a locking door to get back on their feet, and we should absolutely make that available to anyone who is willing to live peacefully in the community (whatever they do behind their closed door is obviously their business). It’s absolutely heartbreaking reading stories like this when there are relatively affordable options to solve the problem.
I’ve never once met an unhoused human who stated they prefer life on the street. I have met some unhouse folks who made the choice, but this always aligned with living the van life, backpacking, or some drawn out international trips. Regardless, homelessness increased 12% last year. This is a massive increase and I’d bet the vast majority didn’t want this to take place as their hand was forced due to cost of living increases. In addition, nearly half of the homeless population is employed in the states, which is bonkers.
While I hear what you’re saying, it’s equivalent to claiming wewe shouldn’t cure cancer cause some people choose cancer by smoking. In other words, while there are select few unhoused individuals who choose the path, a vast majority wish they had a home and feel abandoned by society. Especially as it becomes increasingly more “illegal” to be unable to afford rent on top of groceries, medical care, and transportation cost. The recent cost increases also make paying a fine instead of going to jail more unobtainable. It’s a vicious cycle being homeless, as no address prevents one from opening a bank account and also makes finding a better job very difficult.
Oh sure, those that don’t want permanent shelter are certainly in the minority. I’m just saying the goal shouldn’t be to put everyone in a shelter (i.e. outlaw lack of shelter), but to have enough shelter options that everyone has access should they choose to.
I’m certainly no expert here, I’ve only volunteered with a handful of outreach groups and done some research.
I totally agree. Another issue is having your address be a halfway house or shelter, employers know those addresses and ignore those applications.
Ideally we’d build a ton of tiny houses for those who want shelter, and have the addresses be PO boxes to reduce discrimination. Things like drug rehab should be offered, but never required, and imo there should be a nominal payment expected so tenants feel like they are contributing (perhaps free for 6 months, then something like $20-50/month, with lots of forgiveness). The structures should be big enough to be comfortable, but not so nice as to discourage moving out once they have the means.
But these housing arrangements need to be voluntary. If we force people to live there, it’s not going to work. I know you’re not suggesting that, but I’ve heard enough people push for something like that. Being unsheltered needs to be an option, but it should never be the only option.
Why aren’t PO boxes free for the unhoused? Your comment made me think that would be a relatively cheap, and uncontroversial, way to help people gain employment.
Edit: obviously we should do more,more just curious why we don’t already do this
Yeah, at least forward that PO Box mail to a specified shelter.
That makes a lot more sense, thanks for the clarification! Housing options and OS telemetry both should 100% be optional! Sorry for the random comparison, I’m just a privacy and security nerd lol
Same. :)