In many cities across the United States, from large metropolises to quaint, quiet communities such as ours, homelessness has become a quintessential concern. Though many residents agree on the severity and the pressing need to change current public policies, the residents have yet to reach a consensus on what those policies should be. Homelessness is a multifaceted, complex problem that has no simple fix. However, many elected officials across the country are resorting to criminalizing the consequences of homelessness in an attempt to appease their constituencies. These policies will not alleviate the solution since the root causes remain. Institutional factors include a lack of affordable housing, restrictive zoning laws, and inadequate mental health resources. Although that list needs to be more comprehensive, to affect homelessness, any public strategy must at least address these problems.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 earlier this year in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that criminal penalties, such as fines or incarceration, to deter homeless camping does not violate the “cruel and unusual” clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that due to the lack of available shelter, the homeless population had little choice but to camp, constituting an Eighth Amendment violation. Grants Pass’s ordinance, the one on which the suit was based, also contained anti-camping provisions and used fines and incarceration as enforcement. Cities across the U.S., such as Roseburg, believe the Supreme Court ruling allows them to enact laws similar to Grants Pass’s ordinance.
Last week, the Roseburg City Council voted unanimously to approve Ordinance 3605, or the “Camping Code Amendment” ordinance. Under the new ordinance, homeless residents who violate current camping restrictions could pay between $100 and $250 for the first two offenses, respectively. Further violations could lead to seven days of incarceration. The city asserts that this will encourage those receiving violations to use the city’s Transitional Court, which would commute their sentence pending the successful completion of a court-mandated rehabilitation. However, without other safeguards and with limited public resources, rehabilitation, and stability will be a momentous struggle. If one has no shelter to secure them, it is difficult to expect them to maintain any semblance of stability.
If they are sentenced to a maximum of seven days, it would be dubious to think that the punishment would act as a deterrent. Since they have no other alternative but to continue camping in public spaces, a sentence would not motivate them to achieve stability. Rather, a criminal record would place another barrier on them from successfully rehabilitating themselves. Not only is the ordinance bad public policy, but it is also unethical and morally repugnant. If somehow they can pay the fines, these policies are depriving them of the resources they still have to provide for themselves. Unless the city provides more resources to help, fining them then not using the revenue to strengthen the infrastructure necessary for stability is morally abhorrent. Although I was not able to be at the meeting, I strongly urge Mayor Rich and all city councilors to reflect on the ordinance and ask themselves whether the city will truly be a better place because of it.
This article was posted in News-Review on 7 Sep 2024. Kevin Hansberger has lived in Roseburg since 2013. He is a lifelong Douglas County resident and the corresponding secretary of the Democratic Party of Douglas County.
Yorumlar