Table of Contents
Housing not Handcuffs: an Analysis of Anti-Vagrancy Laws
With about two million people experiencing homeless at some point in a given year, it has become a national crisis in America. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, cities across the nation have adopted legislation to make it harder for homeless and low income individuals to survive. This includes banning panhandling, food sharing, camping in public, and more in attempt to punish the homeless for carrying out daily necessary activities. This absurd approach to the issue which is essentially outlawing the way individuals without housing live to survive, offers no real solution and normalizes hatred. The enforcement of this legislation that incriminates homeless individuals creates further barriers for them to receive housing and perpetuates a negative stigma about them by undermining the challenges of homelessness.
Ordinances that Criminalize Homelessness
Panhandling Laws
Even though the Supreme Court considers bans or restrictions on begging a violation of the First Amendment, many cities are still enforcing laws that do so. As of January 2018, the ban on panhandling in Virginia Beach was lifted; however, the city is late to repeal the ordinances allowing it. (Skelton, 2018). In 2015 in the decision in Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert (2015) has set a general rule when regulating speech is based on its contents. It surprisingly was not a case involving panhandling, but it was revolutionary to the movement against anti-vagrancy laws.
Although the case of Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert (2015) was about an ordinance banning a church from putting up signs about their services, it marked a victory for civil liberty groups and other proponents who advocate for the rights of homeless individuals. This case set a precedent for regulating free speech that requires any ordinance attempting to do so to serve some interest of the government. The ordinance is unconstitutional if the purpose of it can be accomplished by any other means other than a content-based restriction on speech (Lauriello, n.d.). This has strengthened arguments saying that panhandling bans are a violation of the First Amendment and discriminatory towards the homeless as they usually are passed due to a business complaining that beggars scare their customers away which is not valid.
127 our experts are availableright now
Allowing people afraid of addressing poverty and homelessness feel comfortable does not really qualify as a compelling government interest. City councils continue to masquerade blatant attacks at the homeless community as being another way to protect people from harm. There are laws in place to protect people from violence, threats, and disorderly conduct however cities continue to justify panhandling bans as a way to further help people feel safe. Out of 128 cities in the U.S. approximately 70 percent still have laws that ban begging in specified public places usually including places where businesses are prevalent such as commercial and tourist districts (Wogan, 2017).
Food Sharing Laws
There are many myths and motivations that have been circulating regarding homelessness and food sharing. These myths lead to conceptions generally agreed upon by society which inhibits laws that restrict or prohibit food sharing to be passed. Narrow minded perspectives have painted the picture that sharing food with the homeless enables them to remain homeless. This perspective and other myths have led to 31 cities nationwide taking steps to reduce or ban the act of food sharing (“Food Sharing Report”, 2014, pg. 4). NOT DONE
Sleeping and Camping in Public Laws
A major fallacy in our legal system today is that homeless individuals are being punished for sleeping in the streets when shelter is not accessible to them. NOT DONE
Why has the Homeless Community been Targeted
History. A report by the Seattle University School of Law found that ordinances that punish the homeless can be traced back to the beginnings of our country. In the original thirteen colonies of the United States many of the laws were based off of those made by english parliament. This includes anti-vagrancy laws. The State of Labourers written by English Parliament in the 14th century under King Edward III greatly influenced the colonies to enforce laws that punish vagrants. Vagrants during this time were considered to be people who travelled from one city to the next and did not have money or a job. Laws during this time were tailored to purposefully discriminate against these people and empower local authorities to push vagrants out to avoid economic instability. These type of discriminatory legislation persists throughout history: from Jim Crows laws that suppressed Black Americans, the prohibition of migrant workers moving from plain states to Washington or California, to the punishment of disabled americans for appearing in public places in the United States. (Ortiz & Dick, 2015)
Patterns and mentalities stemming from society’s response. This section will explore why why are homeless people treated so poorly in America. Why are people with the least social power treated as if they are a threat to society? The answer is that society sees homeless individuals as a part of “deviant subculture” due to mainstream media depicting them that way. This places them under stereotypes of danger, disease, and criminality. The homeless and others who fall under this construct are seen “as inferior, inhuman, unsympathetic, deserving of their fate, and perhaps even requiring punitive measures.” Basically society believes these people are subhuman individuals who deserve to be treated poorly and don’t deserve compassion. All of this is based on perception and not fact which confirms how strong the power of human emotions and collective conscience is (Amster, 2003).
