• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Guess we’re about to find out what happens when you take 600,000 economically disparaged people and temporarily lock them up in an understaffed for profit penal institution that is currently in the middle of historically low classes of recruits. Im sure this will make everyone involved a better person.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s not charging a homeless person for falling asleep outside.

        It’s offering them shelter space and charging them when they refuse.

        “Hey, let’s help get you into a shelter…”

        “Fuck you! I won’t do what you tell me!”

        Which, unfortunately, is all too common.

        https://apnews.com/article/portland-oregon-homeless-camping-rules-419270cc3c36417789affb2b05df4da0

        “Those who accept offers of shelter won’t be cited, according to Wheeler’s office. For those who are cited, the courts will determine whether to waive fines. The ordinance says it encourages diverting people to assessment, emergency shelter or housing instead of jail.”

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          The article and ruling isn’t about Portland, it’s about Grants Pass.

          At the center of the case is Grants Pass, a city of roughly 40,000 in southern Oregon with ordinances that bar camping or sleeping on public property or in city parks. The city’s rules define “campsite” as “any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed.”

          As far as I can find their ordinance has no such exceptions.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Thanks to the Supreme Court, it’s no longer Grants Pass, each municipality can set their own rules and in Oregon, it’s already been decided at the State level.

            https://www.orcities.org/resources/reference/homeless-solutions/homelessness-public-space

            "HB 3115 requires that any city or county law regulating the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outside on public property must be “objectively reasonable” based on the totality of the circumstances as applied to all stakeholders, including persons experiencing homelessness. What is objectively reasonable may look different in different communities.

            The bill retains cities’ ability to enact reasonable time, place and manner regulations, aiming to preserve the ability of cities to manage public spaces effectively for the benefit of an entire community."

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              You seem to be overlooking that SCOTUS specifically ruled that it is constitutional to charge homeless people $300 for falling asleep outside with a blanket, which is what the thread was about.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I get it, what I’m saying is Oregon passed HB 3115 in response to policies like those in Grants Pass.

                So even though the Supreme Court is allowing it, State Law supercedes it.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    It comes as cities nationwide grapple with a spike in the number of people without access to shelter, driven in part by high housing costs and the end of aid programs launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The ruling is likely to clear the way for state and local officials to mete out civil punishments in an effort to curtail homeless encampments, which have spread throughout the West as a result of a federal appeals court decision in the case involving anti-camping ordinances from Grants Pass, Oregon.

    A number of state and local leaders across party lines have defended camping bans as necessary for protecting public health and safety, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found laws imposing civil penalties on homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go are unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding that the enforcement of laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

    In 2013, local officials decided to ramp up enforcement of ordinances that prohibit sleeping or camping on public property or in city parks.

    A divided panel of three judges on the 9th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, finding that Grants Pass couldn’t enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless people merely for sleeping outside with protection from the elements when they have nowhere else in the city to go.


    The original article contains 678 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I know I should be used to it by now but it shocks me that there are likely millions of christian conservatives who would yell at you for this, even though this sentiment is literally echoed exactly by Jesus.

      And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

      That verse swings both ways. God isn’t counting all your good deeds for the ‘least of my brothers’, but none of your transgressions against them.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Conservative (and let’s be real, also neoliberal) Christians hate that verse. There are so few places in the NT where Jesus explicitly says “you will go to hell for this,” and that’s one of them. They get extremely uncomfortable if you make them think about how they believe they will one day have to stand in front of God and explain why they ignored this verse.

        So naturally I advocate bringing it up to them as much as possible. There actually are a lot of deeply Christian people who are disturbed by the dissonance there, and for the most part the messaging just isn’t happening. Like, what is the biggest Jesus advertisement campaign right now? Probably the Protestant Buddy Jesus “He gets us” campaign, which doesn’t really say much of anything.

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What was that thing Jesus said? Do unto others?.. the greatest commandment is to love one… give all your possessions and follow… something something… the least among you… snaps fingers Hate gay people! That’s what I’m supposed to do! Control women’s medical choices, and make sure gay people have no rights. of course!

  • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    So then where are people supposed to sleep when nothing else is available, how can it possibly be a crime to give yourself shelter and sleep?

  • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    SCOTUS: “Good news, everyone! We figured out how to keep up the prison population amid record low crime rates so you won’t have to pay minimum wage, isn’t that great?”