Earlier this month, the Supreme Courtroom agreed to listen to the case of Grants Cross (Ore.) v. Johnson. In doing so, it can think about whether or not the criminalization of homelessness (outlawing unavoidable actions unhoused individuals interact in to outlive) is constitutional. The justices will little question think about the centuries’ previous which means of the Eighth Modification’s prohibition on “merciless and weird punishment.”
Nevertheless, it’s price taking a second to contemplate how these legal guidelines are merciless and weird underneath our modern-day sensibilities as a result of they’re, in spite of everything, coverage decisions our elected officers have enacted and select to implement.
For starters, criminalization is plainly merciless as a result of individuals experiencing homelessness have nowhere else to go. No metropolis in California has sufficient beds to shelter or reasonably priced houses to deal with everybody dwelling on the road. Additional, these legal guidelines have disturbing parallels to their segregationist predecessors like Sunset Cities, so-called “Ugly” legal guidelines and Anti-Okie lawsthat have been used to bar individuals of coloration, individuals with disabilities and folks dwelling in poverty from public areas. A 2015 report out of San Francisco confirmed that 74% of unhoused individuals have been approached by police and 69% have been cited within the 12 months prior — statistics that, if uncovered in reviewing police enforcement in different traditionally marginalized communities, we’d all agree constituted civil rights violations.
Criminalization can be merciless as a result of it has clear destructive well being impacts on individuals experiencing homelessness. The expertise of criminalization and the attendant encampment “sweeps” is torturous. Police departments and municipal employees frequently seize and destroy individuals’s belongings, together with tents they use to remain dry, blankets and sleeping luggage they use to remain heat and medicine they use to deal with life-threatening well being situations like HIV.
It’s no shock that researchers confirmed “sweeps” negatively have an effect on well being outcomes and improve the danger of mortality for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Lastly, criminalization is slightly uncommon when you think about how ineffective it’s. It’s fairly probably the costliest and ineffective coverage localities can pursue. The price of incarcerating an unhoused individual is roughly $106,000 per 12 months — and that doesn’t account for policing and court docket administration bills. The price of housing and offering wraparound providers to somebody in everlasting supportive housing however? Roughly $38,000.
Criminalization serves to drive individuals deeper into homelessness. Fines and court docket charges related to citations divert essential funds away from safety deposits and lease whereas prison information with misdemeanors can dissuade potential employers and landlords.
Within the months main as much as oral arguments earlier than the court docket, our elected officers will search to justify their cruelty with false narratives. They’ll say “the stick of criminality is critical to supply the carrot of shelter and housing,” all whereas figuring out full properly that there aren’t sufficient shelter beds, housing items or rental subsidies to go round. They’ll use dog-whistle rhetoric to persuade you that unhoused persons are harmful criminals. Nevertheless, the “crimes” they search to implement embody sitting down, mendacity down and sleeping — biologically unavoidable habits. Or possibly they’ll counsel that anti-homeless legal guidelines are essential to offer for the “well being and security” of our communities.
Giving unhoused individuals citations and telling them to “transfer on” simply pushes them to a different campsite elsewhere on the town. It doesn’t promote their well being and security — nor ours.
With Grants Cross earlier than the court docket, now is an effective time to remind ourselves that criminalization was and continues to be a coverage determination — a selection. Even when the justices determine it’s constitutionally permissible, enacting anti-homeless legal guidelines and implementing them would stay a selection. However no interpretation of the framers’ intent will change the truth that criminalization is merciless, pricey and ineffective.
To finish homelessness, we should select compassion and understanding over cruelty, and, after all, residence keys over handcuffs.
