Professional Children's tent manufacturer SINCE 2008

ShIP to

homelessness at the cathedral.

by:Muzi     2020-03-19
This paper believes that the legal restrictions on homeless people are solved by applying certain nuisance. Like a method.
By taking nuisance restrictions on property
Based on society
Identifying information, courts and rulings
Decision makers choose ways to create conflicts between homeless and accepted social identities.
These methods tend to classify social choices that tolerate homelessness into established social order (property)
The concept of freedom (
Constitutional rights or dual procedural rights).
This paper argues for a broader concept of social identity, which may force parties to internalize certain costs, tolerate certain uses, or weaken the full range of property rights permitted by law in different social contexts.
Considering the \"bad\" use of space ---
Private and public land--
To help express the property narrative beyond economic rhetoric --
The right to be bound and to provide a broader, more honest description.
It is envisaged in this way that property rights represent information on how society can define, refine, enforce and reject its collective identity by legally recognizing property rights.
The laws of property are established with information. -
Information about the market, information about wealth, information about social identity. (1)
It is considered to be a catalyst for economic stability through systematic information transmission. (2)
It is shaped by political power and expectations of social stability. (3)
It conveys what is important by being the canvas of our creativity. (4)
It expresses our value by how we manage it when it is scarce (5)
How do we do this when it is rich. (6)
We don\'t know why we got it and tell the story of why it still makes sense. (7)
As a signal of prosperity and power, property attracts our attention (
On the contrary-powerlessness). (8)It remains--
As Blackstone pointed out-
The catalyst of our imagination and emotions, whether obtained through hook or scammer, is then considered to be something that verifies our social life. (9)
The Law of Property reflects our collective identity. -
What we value, what we don\'t value, why we think it is important.
The core of real estate is also the recognition of people\'s living space. (10)
Property law reflects the collective character of a society that recognizes its resource value, enforceability, or importance.
Laws and decisions relating to land
Use, whether it\'s criminal, contract or infringement-
Reflects social recognition or disapproval of the behavior of individuals or groups in public and private spaces. (11)
As a broad question, space allocation is important because society collectively recognizes that one\'s right to space exceeds that of another. (12)
This is also important because if property rights are not recognized, the property system will have an impact on our collective identity ---
Cultural contract soto-speak. (13)
Cases involving homeless persons demonstrate the way in which collective identification affects court decisions.
In the case of homelessness, the court allocates space (
And take away the space)
According to how they view the so-called uses associated with collective identity. (14)
These cases are also linked by the choice of society not to recognize the rights of space to our collective identity. (15)
At another level, the actual use of aspace, whether or not it constitutes property, is often determined by the collective social judgment that reflects the social identity. (16)
In other words, telling us something about our collective values may not just be the creation of statutory rights.
Rejecting a particular use in a particular place may be a collective judgment, a place that best tells us our social identity.
Iconic views of the Cathedral of Calabres and melmy ,(17)
Describe a property decision as a decision to promote individual ownership by retaining the power to market exclusion (property rules), (18)
Transfer of personal ownership by implementing objective damages rules (Rules of responsibility), (19)
Or transfer through national action restrictions (
Non-transferable rules). (20)
The core of these rules is the concept of rights ---
The countries described by Calabresi and Melamed choose which interests in the face of conflict. (21)
However, this conceptual framework merely extends other broader principles by coercive means. (22)
That is, legal rights reflect a common consensus on how to use a particular space and who should make a decision. (23)
This common consensus constitutes information about what is social values, what is not valued, and how it chooses to express them.
Sometimes this consensus conveys the message reserved for public use. (24)
For example, scholars try to explain why public space is recognized by law in the face of systems that tend to private ownership. (25)
In this area, groups seek to prove their identity in the context of collective recognition.
The existence of \"informal norms\", the recognition of rules, and the choice to occupy one space rather than the other, more broadly reflect the collective choice to tolerate or not tolerate the occupation of a particular space by an individual or group. (26)
Sometimes this is found in the restrictions on access to public space by certain unpopular groups. (27)
This article describes space-
Both in the private and public spheres can serve as a means to define our collective identity.
In particular, how do we choose to restrict the occupation or use of a particular space by a claimant and import collective identity through rule confirmation.
Rule recognition is information that reflects the validity of the user\'s use of space. (28)
For example, homeless people can occupy territory based on the hierarchy established by power and bargaining. \" (29)
However, due to the lack of legal rights to occupy space, these individuals have to accept the choice of society, no longer tolerate their possession of certain spaces, and no longer tolerate their denial of the right of others to share space. (30)
Similarly, the court allows owners to freely use their property in any way they may choose ---
Until those who expect a different collective judgment on how far the rights of the owner of the property should extend. (31)
The court may put an end to harmful acts, demand compensation for Continued Acts, approve acts of non-compensation, or approve acts of acceptance of compensation. (32)
The court may also decide that the rights of the owners cannot interfere with different collective rights. (33)
In all of these cases, collective identity is reflected in actions that the court and the legislature will tolerate in a particular space.
Rule recognition (
Or choose one right instead of the other)
Reflect applicable collective norms of society and place. Collective norms-
Creating three main functions for society:1)
It represents the general interest,(2)
Denying or transforming contradictions; and (3)
It makes the existing social structure natural or concrete. (34)
This article believes that these three criteria
Creation has emerged in homeless cases related to space control.
First, space control tends to reflect collective expectations of space
Use by code of conduct and formal rules that are respected or not respected in a particular space. (35)
In each scenario, for example, there are behaviors that are forgiven by the dominant space culture, as well as behaviors that are not tolerated. (36)
Sometimes, rules are formally applied, and other times, rules are only executed by participants in the space, and there is not much understanding of the existence of rules. (37)
When norms and behaviors associated with an area are met, individuals become part of a group whose identity is associated with the geographic space they occupy. (38)
Most of this Conformity occurs on informal occasions and is usually recognized only when a violation of etiquette becomes apparent. (39)
For example, in Occupy Nashville v.
Hashem, protesters at the War Memorial Square in Nashville (the \"Plaza\")
Without a curfew(40)
The court said, \"the old rules allow overnight in the square. . .
\"Although the local government encourages the adoption of new rules\" to reduce the urination, defecation and vandalism of homeless people who sometimes use the square as a \"shelter\" for overnight stays \". \" (41)
The local government finally passed new regulations limiting the ability of residents to spend the night in the square. (43)
Combination of formal rules (the curfew)
And informal purposes (
Reduce the meaningless presence in the Square)
When the status of the Occupy group changed from protesters to public nuisance, they began to be instilled.
Therefore, the occupants of the square, by introducing new rules and a wider collective judgment of space, are consistent with negative features such as intentional destruction, public urination, and indecent exposure. (43)
In this case, offensive behavior is rarely classified as an attack on any one person, but rather an attack on the collective, even if only a few people care. (44)
Second, norms related to space
If there is no specification, the use tends to mask or confuse transactions that might otherwise exist.
For example, in Isbell v.
The city of orrama, the plaintiff stated in an action prohibiting the removal of tents from the site of the occupation of the city of orrama, that \"sleeping tents constitute a visual representation of the group\'s information;
As a result of economic events such as mortgage cancellation of collateral redemption and financial crisis, the poor and homeless living in tents fought against Wall Street and the government. \" (45)
As long as these visualizations are not actually representative of the poor and homeless, but rather symbolic, they are tolerated and accepted. (46)
But when the people who occupied the city of Oklahoma were dissolved, leaving only homeless people occupying the space of the park, the city quickly dismantled its tents, thus covering up historical information. (47)Lastly, space-
When respected, it is claimed that the identity of the person claiming the space is consolidated by the actual occupation of the space and the means by which they choose to occupy it. (48)
At a certain point, space is defined not only by the participants who occupy it, but also by the space beginning to define the participants. (49)
Therefore, homeless people are those who occupy public space without permanent ideas. (50)
Robert Parker made this observation when studying how groups interact in cities: the most extensive space creation for humans is the city, where humans try to create a world closer to their desires(52)
Humans replicate this behavior in smaller spaces, trying to forge these entities into smaller spaces they occupy. (53)
In general, these identities identify spaces through people\'s behavior, culture and customs.
The ability to claim identity based on space occupation has certain benefits.
Identity can lead to scarce resources for people. (54)
The identity in the space may be related to intangible qualities, such as the preservation of cultural memory (55)
Or the instigation of creativity. (56)
Identity related to space may be related to personal security.
The first part of this article draws on the interpretation of collective identity as a source for understanding how individuals interact with legal acts.
The first part defines the collective identity of the concept of rights similar to Calabresi andMelamed, incorporating the power pair-a-
Property ownership and moral superiority are measures to understand when collective action takes place. (57)
The first part believes that collective identity, especially those that rely on subjective understanding of identity, is particularly easy to exclude the expectations of under-represented communities for agitated entities such as homeless people. (58)
In the first part, home entities are called counterexamples of dominant collective identities.
The second part of the article takes into account the types of homeless cases and their relationship to physical space.
Legal disputes for homeless people interact with physical space in three major categories of cases.
One of these is the dispute over the occupation of public space by homeless people ---
Sleep in public areas or leave personal belongings in public places.
The second category of cases involves activities in which homeless people affect public and private spaces ---
Such as drunkenness in public places, fanfare, recycling, and assumed moral hazard, such as sex in public places or urinating in public places.
Finally, the third category of cases concerns the impact of property that attracts homeless people on other properties.
The second part describes these categories of cases by stating the various approaches taken by the court to each type of dispute.
The third part of the article considers how these spaces are
The case based on homelessness relates to the rulemaking in which carabres and meramame explain how identity emerged in these decisions.
In the second part, the article sets out the annoying things in the framework of the rights transfer plan in Calabres ammera ---
Use of property rules, liability rules and non-transferability-
The main focus is on property rules and non-transferability. (59)
The article believes that collective recognition is the potential value of decision makers choosing to apply specific rules.
In the case of homelessness, this usually means that the interests of vested interests conflict with those of individuals.
Many times, the status of homeless people is rarely considered an illegal decision, because homeless people lack the source of legal relief in addition to being associated with universal demands.
On the other hand, owners and Space members can often express their subjective expectations of collective identity through control of space.
In these cases, the question is not whether there is a problem with the act, but what identity does the legislation, Constitution or legal protection extend.
Part 1: collective identification in legal action sociological and legal scholars use collective identification as a way to explain resource mobilization and political process. (60)
In the sociological literature, collective identity is used to explain how actors in social movements take a common sense of movement as collective actors, although there are individual identities in the collective movement. (61)
In legal research, collective identity refers to the overall identity of the state through its actions (
Adoption of laws and regulations)
Represents the community it represents. (62)
In the legal sense, collective identity is supported by two basic concepts ---
Consultative democracy (63)
And rights. (64)
In both cases, collective identity becomes a way of explaining collective action, even if some actors do not fully conform to the description of supporting identity.
In this case, the collective identity uses the concepts of dialogue creation and structural forces to support the fiction of the collective whole.
Collective identity at the governance level is usually achieved through corporate and social construction of state actors. (65)
Corporate identity is a collection of managed voters. (66)
\"Social identity is [the]
A set of meanings of Actorattributes [herself]
At the same time stand in the perspective of others. \"(67)
Imagine the public space of the metropolis, including the atourist attractions, the public space of cultural significance, and the amerchant square.
If homeless persons who also occupy the area are treated as a threat to the use of the space by other members, others who belong to the collective identity around the space (
Composed of businessmen and management agencies)
It will reduce the role of the social identity of the homeless in the process of collective identity formation.
This can happen because businessmen and government officials attribute illegal social identities to the homeless.
If a homeless person is given a social identity in the process of governance, then this identity is usually based on basic features (i. e.
Lack of permanent housing)
Or the identity of the governing body that has been identified as a problem (i. e.
Drug abuse, nuisance, wandering, gang members, etc. ). (68)
As a result, homeless people are like those who are governed by tourism, but there is little expression of identity in the legal and political process.
In the sociological framework, there is a great concern about the role of individual actors in establishing their own identity and promoting the collective identity of the movement to which they belong (origin). (69)
Sometimes, the legal system adopts the personal social identity of the actors associated with themselves;
Sometimes, the legal system projects social identities on actors. (70)
This leads to inaccurate tensions, such as the difference between nuisance-based legal claims treatment applicable to owners and legal claims treatment considered social issues. (71)
The legal claim for nuisance caused by environmental damage is formed by the collective supervision of space;
Therefore, the existence of identity recognition such as property ownership often becomes the most obvious means to protect collective interests. (72)
This discrepancy reflects the reality that laws and regulations depend on the difference in authority and effectiveness as the touchstone of its enforceability.
Some sources of authority and effectiveness are relationships and entities formed in political and legal settings. (73)
Because of the emergence of legal power and legal knowledge. . .
As always, to distinguish between scale [,]
\"Identity Formation in space has the greatest impact on urban and local laws and regulations. (74)
Most legal scholars tend to ignore personal identity, assuming that personal identity is fully expressed within the scope of protected legal interests (75)
Or through the emergence of a political process. (76)
Therefore, legal scholars prefer to pay attention to the problem --
Resolving problems in the dispute space often ignores social identities that seem to challenge existing project subjects ---
Such as the owner or economic interests. (77)
As described by Calabresi and Melamed, choosing which party in the legal interest of the competition is the core function of resolving the transfer of rights;
This is reflected in the so-called law enforcement theory of rights, in which the law determines which legal interests are competing with each other. (78)
This respect for judgment based on \"Who is most worthy\" reduces the valuation of the level of preference of personal identity, which is usually preferred over established traditional interests such as property ownership over personal identity interests.
Similarly, the concept of democratic deliberation (79)
This process shows that the imposition or reduction of rights by legal means represents a collective view, as individuals can participate in the political process. (80)
It is important that neither the rights theory nor the consultative democracy theory take into account the social identity that does not fall within the legally enforceable interest, such as the social identity of the homeless.
Homeless people do not have access to identifiable legal rights to enforce the requirements for space, and at the same time they are not involved in the political process, which usually gives permission to the city and local governments, from an authoritative point of view(81)
Another option to engage in a relationship problem-
The solution paradigm considering different identities is abandoned or ignored. (82)
It is the foundation of this failure to determine the land --
Restrictions on the use of urban space have led to \"passwords-
Tendency to functionally
\"This means managing the land --
Use, but actually target vulnerable groups such as homeless people. (83)
The city government\'s choice to recognize only the most obvious identity of the homeless also denies any meaningful process of relationship between the homeless and the coordinated identity of the public space.
As has been explored in other fields,
The recognition of the identity of nuances reduces the access of individuals to legal and political remedies or rights. (84)
Similarly, homeless people are considered a problem that cities cannot cope ---
Not to listen to voters. (85)
The lack of this power also means that in the relationship structure, other interested entities in the space will have more access to legal and political means than homeless people.
Some voters can influence the way the government acts in direct contrast to the inability of gays to seek protection for their own interests.
Urban Economic interests often mobilize support to address the problem of homeless people. (86)
Many city life watchers describe the motivation for mobilization, which is a firm reason to control street behavior that the collective considers unpopular.
Businessmen and \"citizens\" urge government officials to take action to deal with chronic homelessness as the economy in their communities dries up. (87)
Supporters of broken windows, for example, often point out that homelessness is a precursor to increased criminal tendencies in a region. (88)
This led to the creation of William H.
White describes the city center as \"defensive\" or the city center built to stop unwelcome people. (89)
In fact, businessmen, residents and others with financial interests promote political mobilization, establish defensive prisons around the city center, and treat homeless people as a collective rather than through personal identifiers. (90)
Much of the hostility surrounding these defense efforts is intended to remove obvious signs of confusion in order to prevent more serious crimes. (91)
Often, these pressures lead to the privatization of the previous public space and eliminate the \"problem of convergence\" as the space begins to be plagued and reshaped by the social identity that the dominant collective power structure considers(92)
This usually means legislative and regulatory space based on group exclusion, not the right of the individual to take possession. (93)
It is worth noting that the privatization of public space has been supported by the government --
\"Property rights\" were created, giving the responsible authorities the power to exclude anyone of their choice. (94)
As one author suggested, this privatization is more than just a change in the public facility delivery system: it reflects how open space is \"redefined and reshaped in a changing social environment
Economic and political relations. \" (95)A.
Collective Identity in legal and sociological terms 1.
Create rules through rules to establish social identity-
Especially legal rules. -
Reflects a complex entity, ideology, and power. relationships.
When a city tries to control a specific group, such as the homeless, the rules not only reflect the city\'s perception of group identity, but also reflect the city\'s own identity and ideology, and its ability to enforce these rules. a.
Social identity creates a simple fact that people outside the group classify the group in some way, indicating that the meaning is imposed on the group and those associated as part of the group. (96)
Meaning is \"the category of language, which defines the objects we face, thus constituting our reality and influencing our actions on these objects. \" (97)
An important \"meaning\" imposed on groups is to create executable rules based on broadidentities.
Meaning must contain the ideology of the group that gives meaning and the rules that these ideologies produce. (98)
External group identity provides a convenient, albeit possibly accurate description of group norms for society. (99)b.
Ideology inherent in collective norms
Creation is the expression of rules in collective groups
Creation and rulesfollowing. (100)
According to a group of researchers, \"[A]
The study of ideology must examine how symbolic order maintains the dominant form and determine \"the basic structural elements that connect meaning and legitimacy in a way conducive to dominant interests \". \'\" (101)
In short, we understand the motives of the rules --
Make rules by reviewing who the rules are. (102)c.
An important feature of collective identity and group identity of power relations is the role of power relations and how these relationships continue to define members of different groups.
Certain individuals and constituencies have power in any group, while others do not. (103)
How those who have power interact with power can be described as duality between identity and rules (orstructures)
This is identity. (104)
For example, when laws are passed or enforced, they give meaning not only to groups targeted by law, but also to groups seeking enforcement. (106)
Law has become a means to understand the \"collective\" ideology. Law is a series of rules implemented by society. (107)
For example, when the law is specific to a particular group, homeless people, the ideology of the collective to a particular group may be revealed. (108)
It is worth noting that not everyone abandons the ideological view introduced by certain laws is not important or even relevant.
On the contrary, as a by-product of the tendency to negotiate democracy, the nature of the law shows that the law is subject to power --
Can influence and shape the relationship in which laws exert influence on certain groups. (109)2.
Establishing group identity through rules
Two specific examples of execution illustrate thisidentity--ideology--
The dynamics of power relations are staged with the Homer\'s family.
First, it is more common that local \"economic interests\" tend to mobilize support for \"solving the problem of homelessness \". \" (110)
The motivation for mobilization has been confirmed by many observers of city life and is a war to control street behavior. (111)
At the urging of businessmen and \"citizens\", government officials were urged to take action against chronic homelessness caused by the economic loss of the merchant community. (112)
For example, supporters of window-breaking assumptions often point out that homelessness is a precursor to greater criminal tendencies in a region. (113)
This led to the creation of William H.
Why is it described as a \"defensive\" city center or a manufacturer to stop unwelcome people: in fact, businessmen, residents and others with financial interests tend to mobilize political mobilization around the city center(115)
Much of the hostility surrounding these defensive efforts is to avoid or correct the \"broken window\" syndrome ---
Or removing obvious signs of chaos can stop more serious crimes. (116)
Often, these pressures lead to the renewal of previous public spaces and the elimination of \"family problems\" as space begins to be shaped and reshaped by the dominant collective power structure. (117)
The authors of Asone argue that this privatization is more than just a change in the public facility delivery system: it reflects how open space is \"redefined and reshaped in a changing social environment
Economic and political relations. \" (118)
A second example of this power
The ideological dynamic is that gays themselves are able to challenge local attempts to take them away from the streets in the Constitution. (119)
In this regard, this dynamic is filled with a difficult burden of challenging the de facto constitutional nature of the control of their land use.
Constitutional remedies give people limited powers because they do not target anyone or a group of people.
So even a successful claim is only a minor change in policy.
As stated in the next section, the social structure remains the same and continues to enable and constrain actions based on group definitions.
Such words give politically powerless individuals, such as homeless people, little chance to challenge collective seemingly effective behavior as long as they fall within the realm of regulated people.
Differently, because homeless people are not participants who define their social identities, it is difficult for the rules for social identities to challenge absenteeism associated with broader collective ethics (such as constitutional requirements)B.
Just as rule enforcement often relies on the establishment of group identity, how space exclusion leads to collective identity, and rule enforcement also helps to determine the identity of the person being executed.
In other words, the enforcement of rules that exclude homeless people from public spaces also acts as identifiers for groups where homeless people are excluded.
While security and resource allocation may be an animation principle that leads homeless people to claim that one space exceeds the other, different animation principles are working when homosexuality is excluded from certain areas.
Homeless people are particularly vulnerable to municipal decisions that change the image of a particular space economy.
When city officials choose to change the economic environment in certain areas, homeless people are seen as collective barriers rather than individual stakeholders.
In these cases, homeless people tend to be scattered in less concentrated areas. (120)
One of the main means of doing so is by making valuable resources more accessible, making the areas where homeless people gather less attractive. (121)
Sometimes this is achieved by increasing police enforcement.
Serious violations against homeless people. (122)
Sometimes this is achieved by reducing the available space for a comfortable occupation.
This is ruled out.
Space in work.
Open public spaces to homeless people highlight the expression of collective identity.
Sociological and legal scholars believe that there are two vivid reasons for recycling space from homeless people: Purification (123)and re-
Establish order. (124)
Purification of public spaces for homeless people is often described as removal from a certain area of people who are considered carriers of illness or pioneers of criminal activity. (125)
In general, the community makes a distinction between the use of \"beneficial\" or \"harmful\" spaces. \" (126)\"Salutary[spaces include]
Those who value access and those who are generally welcomed in residential areas. . . [including]
Parks, good schools and libraries. \" (127)
Harmful spaces are spaces that \"generate actual and/or perceived negative effects with their attributes, designs, functions and customer groups, often objects of community resentment and opposition. \"(128)
129 for example, a study showed that homeless shelters scattered among single men were opposed by communities of local neighbors who opposed the placement of homeless shelters near their homes.
Some of the reasons for opposition to shelters include general descriptions of customers such as \"degradation\", \"unsatisfactory\", \"including alcohol drinkers, Brotherhood of drug addicts \". . .
\'Crime\' and \'drunk \'(130)
It reveals the fear of adverse events.
As the researchers concluded, \"[O]
Bjectors believes that the type of person being placed is not intended to \"improve the safety of the area or residents \". \'\" (131)
Space occupancy restrictions based on harmful activities are usually achieved through the combination of criminal proceedings against users and public nuisance civil proceedings against individuals who are convenient to use.
Robert Ellickson even combined the two concepts to describe a concept of chronic street nuisance, which is annoying when \"a person often behaves in a public space away from it-
But no more than Troubles--
Most other users and stick to it for a long time. \" (132)
In this way, the ronic-style public nuisance is like a private nuisance, because when the regulations are implemented, the main remedy sought is to prevent such an act. (133)
Of course, the difference is that public nuisance is usually imposed through criminal sanctions rather than through civil rights resolutions.
Another basis for recycling space is to restore \"order\" as a collective goal \".
For some political and business leaders, order may be more attractive as a vivid principle of space exclusion.
For example, some people believe that \"the emergence of street homeless people in the public domain has a disruptive effect on social order, leading to an increase in crime, resulting in intermediate --and upper-
Consumers from the city center to the suburbs. \" (134)
However, order is often the subjective conclusion emphasized by subjective reason.
In 2003, for example, six homeless people in Los Angeles claimed that the city had made natural human behavior a criminal offence. (135)In Jones v.
The Los Angeles city court held that part of the regulation was not enforceable;
It is important that it announce that the regulation makes the status of homeless persons a criminal offence. (136)
In Jones, the court said: in deleting parts of the regulation, the court distinguishes between things that have been committed, such as public urinating. (138)
However, wandering criminal convictions require law enforcement officers to \"judge\" people\'s criminal tendencies \". \" (139)
A scholar pointed out, \"[Loitering acts]
Reflecting legislation [or judicial]
Prediction of the possibility that persons who engage in certain activities, have certain features or belong to certain groups will engage in criminal activities. \"(140)
These subjective predictions inevitably tend to treat minorities or unpopular groups as inherent objects of suspicion and infer group identity judgments that are different from collective identities.
Recently, other efforts have been implemented under the guise of restoring order.
On 2010, for example, Los Angeles police issued a ban on John.
80 known drug dealers and 300 others have any potential connections near the slums. (141)
While local businessmen and residents praised the effort as a means to clean up the area from known criminal activities, critics believe that the order, under the guise of criminal activity, forced homelessness(142)
This ban has been used in other regions where groups contradict the city\'s sense of etiquette in public spaces.
Mainly, gang bans allow police to use
Assembly standards for recycling space in the name of the order. (143)Suchloose-
The fitting criteria verified the throat reaction of the beating officer. The official believes there is a tendency to commit a crime --
It is not whether the person actually committed a crime or deviated from other norms that are enforceable collectively.
The so-called \"John Doe\" ban is aimed at homeless areas, especially as an identity for homeless people --
Not real crime.
Become a mechanism to maintain a broad collective identity in a space under the guise of maintaining order.
Social scientists believe that collective norms
Create three main functions for society :(1)
It represents departmental interests as universal interests,(2)
Denying or transforming contradictions; and (3)
It makes the existing social structure natural or concrete. (144)
Ironically, a legal scholar believes that politicians, business leaders and academics point to three reasons for the implementation of anti-corruption.
The homeless Act:1)
Strengthening and maintaining public safety; (2)
Improve the image of the city for tourists, businesses and other potential investors; and (3)
To reflect the growing \"compassion fatigue\" of the urban middle class\"and upper-
Class residents. \" (145)
In fact, these reasons for recycling space affirm the observation of the socialist ---
In recycling space (i. e.
Excluding homeless people from space)
Social commitment norms-
Create features.
Society raises the interests of certain sectors above other interests (
In this case, the interests of the family
People and businessmen in their hometown);
It seeks to cover up the existence of homeless people, denying or changing the apparent contradictions of homeless people representing a recognized image of the community;
It conveys to citizens an acceptable attitude towards the poor, namely, the naturalisation and re-discrimination of these citizens.
In short, collective identity is the natural product of controlling space.
In the second part, this paper considers how collective identification occurs in homeless cases.
Part 2: cases of homeless persons that are visible but legally invisible in relation to space can be divided into three categories of legal restrictions --
First, the use of homeless people in public spaces;
Second, homeless activities affecting public and private spaces;
Third, other properties that attract homeless people into private spaces. A.
Homeless people occupy public space for various reasons.
AsTeresa Gowan describes homeless people who live near San Francisco known as \"Haite\" being attracted to the neighborhood by a variety of attractions: availability of acid
Based on drugs, excellent social services, a large number of other family members who provide police protection, and vague yetaccessible spaces that provide greater privacy than open areas. (146)
Parks, libraries and sidewalks are often a collection of host families who are unpopular in other spaces seeking shelter, comfort and quiet escape.
Urban regulations trying to recover these areas draw on the residential dimension of homeless identity, observed by asscholars David Snow and Leon Anderson. (147)
As a description, it is the broadest concept of homelessness and lacks nuances in trying to really capture the personal identity of homelessness. (148)
Cities that reclaim public space from the hands of homeless people tend to be divided into three categories:
Camping laws and other similar restrictions in public places such as parks, sidewalks, streets and warehouses;
Implementation of Health rules in public places;
And seized the property of the homeless under the guise of public health.
It is important that these recycling regulations focus on controlling visual and other sensory contact with the dimensions of the homelesspersons residence.
That is to say, these regulations control the degree of universality faced by the public where one sleeps (anti-
Camping regulations)
How to deal with the expansion of homeless identity in public places (
Rules relating to hygiene and personal property). 1.
Illegal invasion and counter
Camping regulations, as a protection of real estate cities, often enacted regulations designed to prevent family members from sleeping in public places. (149)
These regulations are premised on the interests of local governments in promoting aesthetics, protecting access, ensuring appropriate health and promoting public health. (150)
Jurisdictions differ on whether these rules interfere with the equal protection rights of homeless persons or the Eighth Amendment rights. (151)
In general, with the opposite
Can City officials ban the limited use of public space (
A view for attribute rules)
Or whether the homeless have the right to an inalienable free status
Failure based on sanctions or due process (
An inalienable view of rights).
In Providence city V.
John Doe of Providence city seeks a permanent ban on \"unknown defendants\"-known as \"John Doe\"-for trespassing into a cityowned land. (152)
According to the complaint, these unknown defendants (153)
Set up tents and other unknown buildings without the permission of the city.
The city also claims that the camp \"has no clean water, no garbage facilities, no electricity, no sanitation or bathroom facilities. \" (154)
The Rhode Island high court granted the city\'s ban on claims by homeless defendants that the court lacked subject jurisdiction. (155)
Homeless people argue that the appropriate forum for resolving this dispute is the district court because of Section 8 of Rhode Island common law-8-3(a)(2)
Exclusive jurisdiction \"[\"]a]
The act between the landlord and the tenant. . .
As well as all other actions to \"own the house to the district court. (156)
The court dismissed the respondent\'s argument of subject jurisdiction because the court held that \"the proceedings sound troublesome and are not based on the rights arising from the consent --based landlord-
Relationship. \" (157)
The Rhode Island state Supreme Court agreed that the action was primarily due to illegal trespassing rather than a legal relationship between the two holders of vested property. (158)
According to the analysis of the jurisdiction of the court, the city has the right to control the space it has;
And that family resident has no interactive property relationship with that space.
Also, in Benson v.
Chicago, a homeless man who challenges the city
She was fined for sleeping in a chair at O\'Hare International Airport. (159)
After considering various constitutional reasons, the court found that, under the Eighth Amendment, the regulations on trespassing did not constitute an unusual punishment for crueland. (160)
The court cited the previous Ninth Circuit judgment Jones v.
The city of Los Angeles said, \"Chicago does not prohibit sitting, lying or sleeping in any public place at any time and under any circumstances, but, only when notified, requires one person to leave the property of another person. \" (161)
Like the city of Providence, Benson represents Akul\'s consideration of the state as a property holder ---
It also determines that the excluded property rights are valid and enforceable and do not interfere with other rights. (162)
In the absence of a property relationship, homeless people and advocates sought to clarify the constitutional basis for the removal of urban regulations related to camping.
These constitutional arguments stem from a variety of sources, including the requirement for equal protection under 42 U. S. constitutions. S. C. [section]1983;
The constitutional argument holds that a stateless person is deprived of due process when the ban is applied;
Deprived of constitutional freedom under different constitutional amendments.
In a broad sense, the case can be divided into two cases: Pottinger v.
Miami City and Jones v.
City of Los Angeles. (163)
The first real challenge to applying the rules to homeless people in a city is opinion Pottinger v. 1989City ofMiami. (164)
Actions brought by several homeless persons have lifted some due process and constitutional violations of the Miami Police Department in implementing the regulations. (165)
Specifically, the claimant claims :(1)
The city violated the rights of the constitutional amendment and was not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment; (2)
The city has abused official procedures to expel homosexuality from public view; (3)
The city violated the Fourth Amendment and imposed a pre-arrest equivalent to unreasonable search and seizure; (4)
It is unreasonable for the city to confiscate the property of the homeless, in violation of the fourth, fifth and fourteen amendments; (5)
The city has arrested gay people for basic life.
Maintaining activities, in accordance with the amendments of the quartet, violates the autonomy and right to privacy of the homeless; and (6)
Right to execute life-
Sustainable activities are a fundamental activity with the fifth and Fourteen Amendment protections. (166)
The district court used the Supreme Court, Robinson v.
California has made it clear that city regulations that attack family activities are actually banning their status as family members, not just control of public space. (167)
The Court of the Lin Jin Robinson and other homeless regulations wrote;
This description of the criminal conviction that made the situation of homelessness a secondary effect of the regulations finally wavered the court and asked the court to jointly implement the regulations against homeless persons in specific areas of the city.
Despite the compelling reasons for Pottinger, many courts have refused to follow Pottinger\'s theory of status --
Based on punishment. (169)
On the contrary, many courts believe that urban regulations are in fact neutral (170)
Or the parties to the proceedings are not qualified to question these regulations. (171)
Other courts held that, where applicable, similar regulations did not unreasonably interfere with the procedural rights, constitutional rights or equal protection rights under the law of the homeless. (172)
Homeless people challenge the city regulations after Pottinger has faced difficulties, and it is difficult to prove that the facts are as extreme as Pottinger to show that acity\'s regulations are actually problematic.
For example, in the opinion of another district court, roulette v.
The city of Seattle, Xicheng District, Washington, believes that similar regulations do not infringe on the constitutional or due process rights of homeless people, because they are ostensibly neutral and do not target \"expulsions [\"ling]
Homeless people\" (173)
The District Court stated that, unlike Pottinger, the roulette ordinance does not contain any legislative record indicating the city\'s intention to implement the regulations as a way to expel the homeless. (174)
175 The court also noted the significant interests of the city in promoting the economic health and aesthetics of the city, access to the public area of the city center guarantees restrictions on homeless people sitting on the sidewalk before 9: 00 in the evening. m. and after 7 a. m. (175)
The ninth circuit court reviewed the agreed district court\'s opinion that the same regulation neither posed a threat to the rights of speech of the First Amendment nor posed a threat to the due process guarantees of the homeless. (176)
Similarly, Northern California even suggests that a San Francisco decree is different from pottinger\'s, because its purpose is to help the homeless: courts after pottinger tend to treat similar regulations in the event of de facto neutrality and no evidence (
If there is a legislative record)
These regulations are specifically aimed at homeless people. (178)
This concern for legislative respect, in the absence of evidence of a designated goal, allows the court to avoid dealing with the secondary impact of the city regulations.
The court refused to find
The camping regulations bring unnecessary obstacles to those who do not have an actual place to go, indicating that homeless people, even after pottinger, are invisible to society, but are also targets of social problems. (179)
The second challenge for homeless people after Pottinger is that cities may not be prosecuted.
This makes homeless people ineligible to challenge the decree against the activities of homeless people ---such ascamping.
In Johnson v.
Dallas, the district court found that the Dallas city ban on sleeping in public areas of the city \"failed to pass the constitutional provisions \"; (180)
As in Pottinger, the court found that these regulations violated the provisions of the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. (181)
However, the Fifth Circuit Court overturned the district court\'s judgment, saying that the cases did not come up with \"cases and disputes\" as routinely required \". (182)
The court said: in fact, after Pottinger, the city found itself able to achieve the effect of anti-corruption.
The homeless regulations are not challenged by law. (184)
These tactics to avoid constitutional challenges seem to have peaked in the Jones case.
City of Los Angeles. (185)
Jones, like Pottinger, has a provision [n]
O a person shall sit, lie or sleep on any street, sidewalk or other public road. \"(186)
In Jones, there is not enough housing space in Los Angeles to accommodate all the homeless living in the city, forcing people to sleep on sidewalks, benches and stairs. (187)
The question facing the court is whether the city can continue to execute the counter.
Camping regulations, given where the host family did not actually go.
Unlike previous courts, Jones changed the verbal war against the homeless, shifting the conversation from the choice of \"service against the homeless\" to the choice of the city to enforce restrictions, despite the fact that society
Jones did so by facing two problems facing the court after Pottinger: standing and secondary effects. (188)
First, the court did not agree with the city\'s argument that the person who was not indicted stood in the city\'s general position. (189)
The court held that the plaintiff had met the requirements of the proceedings and the dispute as they were seeking an injunction seeking potential injunctive relief. (190)
Most people wrote: \"It is reasonable expectation that the plaintiff only needs to prove that his actions will happen again, triggering the alleged injury;
He did not indicate that this is likely to happen again. \" (191)
The court then pointed out: \"It may not be possible to avoid illegal acts when potential criminal regulations violate the Constitution. \" (192)
The court said that from the facts of gay claims, the court also found that the ability to present a defense of necessity did not cure other effects of the implementation of the regulation ---
That is, losing property. (194)
The court held that, regardless of the city\'s failure to prosecute, the plaintiff had the right to prosecute injunctive relief that violated the constitutional regulations. (195)
This allows the court to understand their merits --
The applicable constitutional requirement, while the previous court had never considered a similar situation due to procedural restrictions on the homeless plaintiff. (196)
Jones avoided the obstacles and instead considered whether the regulations or their applications had passed the constitutional provisions. (197)
Like Pottinger, the Jones Court focused on the status roles described in Powell and Robinson Supreme Court cases ,(198)
But, unlike Pottinger, the court\'s focus is on the homeless involuntary environment, not on the positive actions of the city. (199)
The court described how the \"innocent or involuntarily\" appearance of a state of inanimate, resulting in the prolonged condition of being forced to sleep on the streets of the slum. (200)
The court wrote: Jones majority supported Powell dissent and Justice White, arguing that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the punishment of individuals for involuntary acts or conditions directly related to their personal identity ---
Like sleeping on the street. (202)
The court then pointed more clearly to the restrictions on its holding ---
\"As long as the number of homeless people in Los Angeles exceeds the number of beds available, the city may not enforce [its anti-
Camping regulations. . .
People who oppose homelessness sit, lie and sleep unconsciously in public. \" (203)
The court after Jones will continue to assert that homeless people will stand in the position of challenging the city\'s regulations where there is no clear prosecution.
For example, a case in the central California region, Portov.
Laguna Beach City, considering claims cited to homeless people for sleeping in public places. (204)
The plaintiff argued that conditions were made for the ability of the homeless to live in the city\'s homeless shelter (
If possession is prohibited)
No appsleeping-in-
Public regulations violating the Constitution(205)
Distinguish between the problems at Jones station (
And later decisions)
The court said: \"[P]
According to the regulations, lainades suffered significant injuries such as loss of property at the time of arrest, imprisonment, fine or arrest. \" (206)
The court further stated that he was \"not \". . .
However, suffered any reaction
Camping regulations;
He claimed [d]only that he [had]
He was warned not to violate the regulations, and he was worried that he would be punished for it. \" (207)
The court found that the two warnings issued by the police without a citation also did not \"indicate the \'real and media\' risk of a citation or other injury\"-
Like in Jones. (208)
But this is the last limit Jones claims will have the biggest impact on homeless cases.
In Jones\'s opinion, the nine-man team showed
When targeting the homeless, the failure to apply the city regulations.
Combined with the lack of shelter space and the fact that the courts believe that many homeless people are \"innocent or unwilling\" homeless, \"This means that homeless people are convicted of identity and cannot avoid criminal sanctions. (209)
But by predicting its attitude towards the city\'s response to the problem of homelessness,i. e.
Provide adequate shelter for homeless people)
Jones, by contrast with Jones, has created ways for future courts to uphold the city\'s regulations. (210)
So, as in the case after Pottinger, the court distinguishes urban behavior by comparing City motives with Miami\'s target intentions ---
By pointing out that when the number of homeless shelters in the city exceeds the number of homeless, there will be no constitutional violations, thus starting to distinguish Jones.
For example, in Bell v.
The city of Boise, the district court of idahoth, believes that the Boise Police station chose not to enforce the city ordinance when the sanctuary was full, which means that the regulation does not constitute cruel and unusual(211)
The special order states that other courts have considered whether the availability of shelter\'s inventory means that enforcement does not
Sleep and reverse
The camping regulations have made identity a criminal offence with mixed results. (213)
InCatron v. City of St.
St. Petersburg, the city has not successfully argued that the existence of inventory means no.
According to the Constitution, the sleep regulations are valid. (214)
However, these arguments appear to have encountered obstacles in the Ninth Circuit, where, like other circuit courts, the tribunal views the existing list arguments as valid urban theories. (215)
Even in the Ninth Circuit, the court found that there was a disagreement with Jones that the lack of inventory was equivalent to the Eighth Amendment to the violation. In Lehr v.
The plaintiff claimed that, as Jones did, although Jones had similarities with the plaintiff inLehr, the Eastern District of California refused to follow the earlier opinion of NinthCircuit and was revoked as part of the settlement with the city under the judgment. (217)
The court noted the widespread problem of homeless persons and refused to extend the scope of the Eighth Amendment. (218)
On the contrary, the court held that the Supreme Court limited the theory of status-based punishment to the theoretical scope of acts involving which the society was not interested in preventing. (219)
The court held that the goal of the Lehr regulation was conduct, not status. (220)
After Pottinger and Jones, the court found a safe haven in the substantive distinction between procedural limitations and urban action.
While allowing the city to proceed and receive the effect of the execution, standing continues to prevent the plaintiff from making a claim.
After Pottinger, despite being affected by the reference, no \"prosecution\" was shown, and this restriction was reflected. (221)
After Jones, the statute of limitations was deemed to have caused no serious injury to Jones, or the plaintiff had not lost his property, had not been arrested, or quoted. (222)
Similarly, the court found safe harborsby noting that the city action in their case was not as serious as the action in the Jones or Pottinger case. (223)
That is, as long as the city does not create a legislative record indicating the desire to treat homeless people in a different way, or, as long as the total inventory of empty beds is greater than the number of gay people in the city, although the regulations make the situation of homelessness a criminal offence, it still stands the challenge of the Constitution. (224)
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...
I will reply to you as soon as possible, or you can contact me at: 2.Skype:lisazhou1314 3.WeChat:week0705 4. Tel.: + (86) 13758908144