GRANT'S PASS V. JOHNSON
This is a US Supreme Court case and one which has made the news recently where the Court has held that homeless people living in public places can be removed by the municipality. In other words, cities and towns are now allowed to remove homeless people from wherever they may be within the city limits.
To understand the decision, one must first know that the court in a much earlier ruling held that a status can not be punished; it is referred to as the Robinson case where the court ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment to simply punish someone for being an addict; or as it was described a "status". For instance, this would mean that you could not punish someone for being black for that would be punishing status, although they certainly didn't go that far.
What the court in Grant's Pass has done is declare that homelessness is not a status and so acts done by the homeless such as camping on a sidewalk can be criminalized; after all they may not be the only people camping on the sidewalk or in some other public place such as a family watching an eclipse or a protester protesting some injustice. The case was brought under the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, you know, such things as burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, dissection - - historical punishments like that. Our founding fathers didn't much care for the idea of torture as punishment and therefore thought it might be a good idea to prohibit it.
So what the Court has done in Grant's Pass is to determine that putting someone in jail for camping on a sidewalk is not putting someone in jail for being homeless, but for camping on the sidewalk. Now, of course, this logic is impeccable; how can you describe a Supreme Court decision in any other terms? What's even more satisfying is that when you arrest a homeless person who has been able to accumulate enough property to actually survive out of doors without an actual abode, the property they have accumulated is either confiscated by the arresting authorities or taken by other homeless people to add to their own accumulated property. In addition, the person being arrested and charged with the crime of trespass or whatever, will now have a fine, court costs, and jail fees none of which will be paid and hence cause the person being arrested to lose their driver's license if they actually were to have one since Iowa, and probably other States, take your drivers' license if you owe the State money and can't pay.
The Court has simply recognized what most of us have already recognized: these people are simply nuisances and require management. People with nice suburban houses don't want them around complicating things or peeing in their backyard. After all, who wants some homeless person, loitering about either asking for money or looking pathetic - - not necessary. At least in jail they will have food and a bed. After all, what more could a person want or really need in life anyway.
So there you have it folks, our courts are coming to the rescue of us: the decent, law-abiding, tax-paying, home-owning people of America and we should applaud their efforts.
Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo
