The Rights of the Homeless and the Contradictions of the Law

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Homelessness is a social problem related to individuals’ poor quality of life, which is caused by social, economic, or criminal injustices in the community. People can become homeless of their own volition, but far more often, life circumstances cause individuals to lose their safe homes and families and be forced to live on the streets. For Los Angeles (LA), homelessness is not an uncommon phenomenon, with over 69,000 homeless people living in the city, a figure that is trending upward (WEHO, 2022).

Discussion

Obviously, low individual living standards are not a desirable outcome for community authorities, and at the same time, homelessness creates additional problems in the form of increased criminality, deteriorating sanitation, and decreased tourist appeal in the region. With this in mind, the LA municipal government developed Article §85.02 within the code, which states that “using a vehicle dwelling between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 06:00 a.m. or using a vehicle for dwelling at any time within a one block radius of a park or licensed school, pre-school or daycare facility” is a crime and is sanctioned by homeless liability (Moore, 2019). At the same time, the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of the homeless in a sense. The Constitution protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment and gives people the freedom to move and the integrity of their property. This, in turn, seems to create real contradictions between fundamental federal law and municipal regulations, which require special consideration.

It is paramount to recognize that the U.S. Constitution in no way postulates the status of homeless citizens, nor does it give them special rights that directly protect them from being treated as a crime to spend the night in public places. Meanwhile, the Eighth Amendment ensures that each offense must be dealt with individually, and no excessive penalties or fines not required in reality should be imposed. This amendment is often associated with court cases in which homeless people are accused of violating city law and order. Human rights advocates argue that the lack of an alternative residence, including due to the scarcity of shelters and other public resources for overnight stays, is sufficient grounds for a homeless person to sleep in a vehicle wherever they want (Rudin, 2018). In other words, in some sense, it can be seen as criminalizing homelessness, which can be viewed in light of the Eighth Amendment as an unusual or cruel punishment. Thus, it is the fact that there is no alternative option that is the reason for acquittal in most cases.

Some inconsistency can also be considered in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. Specifically, this amendment ensures that all people shall receive equal protection and that no laws discriminating against specific cohorts of persons shall be enacted. Indeed, the LA municipal code article can be seen as applying to all people, but in reality, it is directed at homeless people, who are more likely to use personal vehicles for overnight stays. In other words, the contradiction can be seen in the fact that this law disproportionately affects homeless people, and it can be seen as discriminatory.

Conclusion

It is interesting to consider this inconsistency in the context of the court case of Desertrain v. Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 (2014). In that case, the plaintiffs argued that Section §85.02 applied to them was unconstitutional because they parked their cars for an overnight stay in a prohibited area (Court of Appeals, 2014). Plaintiffs pointed to vague language and the possibility of discrimination, that is, selective application of the law, which is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals before this case came to trial ruled that §85.02 was unconstitutional because it criminalized conduct directly related to homelessness and disproportionately impacted homeless people (Court of Appeals, 2014). Thus, there is a direct contradiction in this and similar municipal laws to the provision of the Constitution, as the Court of Appeals affirmed.

References

Court of Appeals. (2014). Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 [PDF document]. Web.

Moore, M. R. (2019). Reinstatement of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 85.02 regulating the use of vehicles for dwelling [PDF document]. Web.

Rudin, D. (2018). You can’t be here: The homeless and the right to remain in public space. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 42, 309-350.

WEHO. (2022). Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority releases 2022 greater Los Angeles homeless count. LA West Hollywood. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Rights of the Homeless and the Contradictions of the Law

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)