Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really think it's a HORRIBLE idea to JAIL PEOPLE FOR BEING HOMELESS AND POOR! How would you like it if you were in that situation? You could lose your job, and you could have your home foreclosed; it's not outside of the realm of possibility. How would you like it if you were out trying to make a NECESSARY LIVING and the police jailed you?
We should not at all punish people for being poor any more than we should punish people for not taking care of their health. (Obama Care hopefully taught us that) We should, instead, use some common sense and show some compassion; we should provide places where poor people can get help. We can MONITOR our poor more closely; we can even require that they SEEK HELP if they are homeless (as long as the help is provided), but jailing them, treating them like criminals, and making it harder for them to find work and earn a decent living is just cruel and unusual.
That's no response at all. What you favor is letting homeless people sleep outside, under bridge, and in the woods in the middle of winter.
To ANYONE that tries to defend these entitled scum-bags that leech off of society & harass hard-working people, I have three questions:
1) Have you ever been the victim of a crime from one of these P.O.S.'s?
2) Do you have to deal with them on a regular basis?
I can answer yes to both of the above.
3) Would you feel comfortable having a homeless shelter built next to your home?
My answer: Definitely NO.
Your points 1, 2, and 3 are understandable. Calling them "scum-bags that leech off society" is simply inflammatory. Some of those "scumbags" are veterans who fought for your freedom in our recent wars. Other are mentally ill.
Would I want to live next to them? No. But then again, I also wouldn't want to live next to people who talk your line.
A lot of these homeless are junkies, alcoholics, and able bodied, entitled lazy people who can work, but choose not to because they want something for nothing. Many (not all) of these people are a bunch of $##%##$ leeches.
I come into contact with people like this on daily basis, and I have seen people like this threaten & get angry at innocent people (typically when they're not given money), scream at others for no reason, and even attack others for no reason.
And, I wouldn't want to live next to anyone like you either - so it goes both ways!!!
Last edited by The Big Lebowski Dude; 12-06-2015 at 08:31 PM..
Viriolic?
Savage beasts?
Harrowing tales of hopelessness and despair?
Let me guess - you work for a non-profit.
I'm suggesting you try reading for awhile and cease all writing until you've at least read enough to make a reasonable post. On another note: Debating calls for a tad more thoughtfulness than you seem capable of imparting, your one liners that are more appropriate for the juvenile level forums are evidence enough of your inability to participate in these kinds of forums at the required level. Debating calls for an in kind response, I'm still waiting for yours.
Vagrancy laws were a reflection of a time in America when people were talking out of both sides of their mouth, something you can most likely identify with. On the one hand advocating for freedom in general, but on the other demonstrating a willingness to throw the other guy's freedom under the bus. This paradoxical thinking is all too common in America today, we hear the calls for depriving others of their due process while waving the flag, freedom implies a freedom from the stupidity of others, we have enough laws to deal with offensive behavior.
There is a reason why vagrancy laws have existed for centuries. Of course before written history if you were in a place where you weren't an established community member and not providing anything to the common good you were just usually done away with immediately. So we have come a long way socially if not in a self-preservative manner.
The reason for vagrancy laws is that there is a statistically significant relationship between high residential mobility and crime. Most of us recognize that from experience and massive effort has been made in the U.S. to resolve issues of homelessness. (Let's also recognize that not everyone who loiters is homeless.)
The reasons for why the problem persists are as varied as the "offenders" themselves. Not all of them are because people are helpless victims so, in the interest of the largely law-abiding public, I think it's a good idea to identify who's who, sort them out and apply the appropriate social response.
Again, you've managed to offer us a vague thought with regard to the OP's initial statement, "appropriate social response", what is this response, and what would allow for it's appropriateness as opposed to being inappropriate? If you are wanting to tie the wandering homeless with a type of criminal propensity why not use a statistical base that compares the crimes perpetrated by the homeless with that of all other crimes, of course you'd be unable to make your case for homelessness and crime as a thing naturally formed. On "identifying who's who:" Is this a "papers please" scenario you've deemed as an appropriate action in a free country?
There has never been a "massive effort" to "resolve the issues of homelessness" in America, there is no national policy that deals exclusively with homelessness, every community has to deal with it on a case by case basis. None of the temporary "help" does much in the way of permanent amelioration. The reason for homelessness has everything to do with poverty, poverty causes people to be without a home. Lumping the visible homeless with those who are couch surfing, sleeping in cars, camped in the fringes of industrial areas, and women who have been abused who have fled with their children is tantamount to a selective view of things. All those in the homeless populace are experiencing problems, they aren't THE problem.
Here's a thought, why not apply the laws evenly, if a person commits a crime we arrest that person, if the person "looks like" he/she may commit a crime we have no reason to arrest them, although they may warrant watching, they haven't committed a crime by simply "looking" a certain way. I guess the real question is, how much do YOU value our collective freedom?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
