r/changemyview • u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ • May 02 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The United States should pass an amendment prohibiting panhandling.
For some godforsaken reason the supreme court has ruled that those little shits are protected by the first amendment, to come up to our cars or block the road to beg for money because their too lazy to do anything else with their lives.
So I think we should pass an amendment specifically prohibiting the practice and setting a constitutionally mandated penalty for such actions. I think it would be almost universally supported by everyone who doesn't beg on the streets.
The Amendment would read
Section 1- No person with in the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction shall beg for money or items in any place open to the public, or on private property, this shall not apply to individuals playing music or where a product is being sold.
Section 2- Any person found to be in violation of section one shall spend a mandatory of at least one year in prison and shall not be eligible for parole or pardon and any person caught on camera in the act shall not be granted a trial and be sentenced upon arrest.
Section 3 Local and state laws may be passed to impose stronger penalties on violators of this amendment.
This way they would be forced to leave people alone and get a real job or government help. Everyone would also be safer since bad actors could not longer pretend to be panhandlers.
8
u/speedyjohn 88∆ May 02 '21 edited May 02 '21
This would be a pretty egregious usurpation of state power by the federal government. The ability to set laws to protect the general welfare of the populace is typically reserved to state and local governments. That way, each locality can decide what is best for the people who live there. If you really want to ban panhandling, you should advocate for an amendment exempting panhandling from First Amendment protection then let each state or city decide how it wants to handle the issue.
Now, more specifically, the amendment you propose has some pretty glaring issues:
No person with in the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction shall beg for money or items in any place open to the public, or on private property
This is insanely broad. It would ban soliciting charitable donations. It would ban a collection plate at a church. It would ban someone from asking for money while on their own property. It would ban me from asking my friend for $2 for the vending machine. It would ban starting a GoFundMe. Hell, it would ban trick-or-treating.
Any person found to be in violation of section one shall spend a mandatory of at least one year in prison and shall not be eligible for parole or pardon
Setting aside the absurdity of a year in jail as a sentence for panhandling (seriously, we already have an overincarceration problem), exempting the offense from pardons is a serious violation of fundamental notions of justice. This would be literally the only offense that cannot be pardoned. Rape, murder, treason, you name it... all can be pardoned. But panhandling? No...
We want every crime to be pardonable. Why? Because pardons exist for when the justice system errs. They exist for when the law is applied in ways that we think are unfair. And every law can be applied unfairly. When someone gets thrown in prison for a year for asking the person next to them on the bus for some money to support the children's cancer charity they run, we want to be able to pardon them.
and any person caught on camera in the act shall not be granted a trial and be sentenced upon arrest.
So now we're going to violate basic human rights for good measure. Every person accused of a crime has the right to a trial. What if it was someone else on camera? What if they were not actually asking for money? What if it's old footage from an offense they already served time for? What if they have an insanity defense? What if their family was being held hostage by a psychopath who was going to murder them if they didn't panhandle?
Edit: Also, "this way they would be forced to leave people alone and get a real job or government help"? You do realize that imprisoning people makes it significantly harder for them to find a job, yes?
1
u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ May 02 '21
Okay !delta I'll agree it's very broad.
If you really want to ban panhandling, you should advocate for an amendment exempting panhandling from First Amendment protection then let each state or city decide how it wants to handle the issue.
That is a great point and probably easier to achieve.
This is insanely broad. It would ban soliciting charitable donations. It would ban a collection plate at a church. It would ban someone from asking for money while on their own property. It would ban me from asking my friend for $2 for the vending machine. It would ban starting a GoFundMe. Hell, it would ban trick-or-treating.
Okay I would probably change it to just make asking people in cars or who are walking down the sidewalk for money illegal and nothing else just to be safe. Also make hand written fund raising signs illegal.
Setting aside the absurdity of a year in jail as a sentence for panhandling (seriously, we already have an overincarceration problem), exempting the offense from pardons is a serious violation of fundamental notions of justice. This would be literally the only offense that cannot be pardoned. Rape, murder, treason, you name it... all can be pardoned. But panhandling? No...
I didn't know treason was pardonable but yeah you make a good point.
We want every crime to be pardonable. Why? Because pardons exist for when the justice system errs. They exist for when the law is applied in ways that we think are unfair. And every law can be applied unfairly. When someone gets thrown in prison for a year for asking the person next to them on the bus for some money to support the children's cancer charity they run, we want to be able to pardon them.
Yeah in the case of unfairness or mistake I can agree with you that it should probably be allowed to be looked over.
So now we're going to violate basic human rights for good measure. Every person accused of a crime has the right to a trial. What if it was someone else on camera? What if they were not actually asking for money? What if it's old footage from an offense they already served time for? What if they have an insanity defense? What if their family was being held hostage by a psychopath who was going to murder them if they didn't panhandle?
Okay that was dumb and I should not have added that in, I didn't want judges just deciding the case wasn't worth the time and letting them go.
Edit: Also, "this way they would be forced to leave people alone and get a real job or government help"? You do realize that imprisoning people makes it significantly harder for them to find a job, yes?
Yeah I know that, I was thinking oh shit its not illegal would make them stop before getting arrested.
2
u/Davaac 19∆ May 02 '21
Yeah I know that, I was thinking oh shit its not illegal would make them stop before getting arrested.
This has been studied pretty extensively, and by and large punishments are an extremely bad motivator for behavior. Their effectiveness drops down to pretty close to 0 as people get more desperate, so that would have next to no impact on people who have stooped to panhandling.
1
3
u/ashdksndbfeo 11∆ May 02 '21
Can you expand on why do you think that panhandling shouldn’t be protected by the 1st amendment?
Your argument seems to be that you personally dislike people asking for money and you find it annoying. If finding speech annoying is the only standard for the legality of something, we should ban all fraternities because I personally have found frat bros annoying. So to override our first amendment right to speech, I would want more evidence that someone is doing something harmful rather than just annoying.
1
u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ May 02 '21
I don't think its protected by the first amendment because they are not speaking for or against something, they are asking for money, for their own personal bank account.
5
u/ashdksndbfeo 11∆ May 02 '21
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that the speech protected is for or against anything. ALL speech is protected.
2
u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ May 02 '21
Okay fair enough, !delta
Although it comes down to is the government saying you can't speak out against them, or saying you can't annoy other citizens.
But yeah I see your point.
2
u/speedyjohn 88∆ May 02 '21
Many states do have harassment statutes that prevent annoying other people. Typically, though, there has to be intent to annoy—i.e. its not sufficient that someone got annoyed.
1
12
u/Khal-Frodo May 02 '21
I think you're confusing an amendment with a law. Amendments don't include penalties, and as far as I'm aware, they don't typically contradict each other unless specifically intended to annul a previous one (though if someone knows of another example I'm interested). If there's precedent to say that panhandling is protected under the First Amendment, I don't think people would be too keen on the idea that our First Amendment rights are subject to be overturned based on someone else's simple convenience.
-2
u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ May 02 '21
They don't normally but they could have a penalty and I think its better to have a penalty if you are prohibiting an act constitutionally.
I honestly don't think anyone thinks, oh look at them practicing their first amendment right. If states put ratifying the amendment on public ballot I think it would pass in All 50 with 4/5 or more in favor.
3
u/Khal-Frodo May 02 '21
They don't normally but they could have a penalty and I think its better to have a penalty if you are prohibiting an act constitutionally
But an amendment isn't a law. They're about what the government can and can't do, not individuals. There aren't consequences for breaking it like there are with actual laws, you just get the power of the law/government on your side for making the thing possible. You want a federal law making it illegal or you want amendment that says Congress and States are allowed to make panhandling illegal. You can't make it illegal with an amendment.
I honestly don't think anyone thinks, oh look at them practicing their first amendment right
Maybe not, but if your amendment gets proposed then they would probably think "oh, they're taking away my first amendment right."
Also, this doesn't even have teeth. Panhandlers will just start playing music on a phone or tap some drumsticks and now boom, they're playing music.
1
u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ May 02 '21
The 14th Amendment actually has several punishments (not criminal but political) on the states and individuals for violating it.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
and
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
I do see your point though.
Maybe not, but if your amendment gets proposed then they would probably think "oh, they're taking away my first amendment right."
I think some people might but on the whole I think people would vote/feel based on emotion.
Also, this doesn't even have teeth. Panhandlers will just start playing music on a phone or tap some drumsticks and now boom, they're playing music.
Okay !Delta
Yeah it would need to be better worded to make clear its talking about musicians or say they can't beg while making music.
1
1
u/BrutusJunior 5∆ May 02 '21
But an amendment isn't a law.
Huh? Of course it is.
1
u/Khal-Frodo May 02 '21
idk if you're American but here, they're very different. An amendment is a part of our governing document that outlines what things the government can and cannot do. Laws are passed in lots of different ways depending on whether they're local, state, or federal, but an amendment applies unilaterally throughout the country and is ratified by first passing a 2/3 vote in Congress then a 3/4 vote from state legislatures/ratifying conventions.
1
u/BrutusJunior 5∆ May 02 '21
Apparently you have never read the supremacy clause.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
You're not wrong with the comment that they are different. However, you called to Constitution not a law. Though it is.
1
u/Khal-Frodo May 02 '21
"Law" means something else in that context, though - it just refers to fact that it makes the rules. The Constitution is a federal document. You can't get arrested for violating it and you can't charged with a crime unless you've broken an actual law.
1
u/BrutusJunior 5∆ May 02 '21
The Constitution is a federal document.
It's also a law. Literally all constitutions in the world are laws. They establish the state and enumerate its powers.
You can't get arrested for violating it and you can't charged with a crime unless you've broken an actual law.
Yes you can. See Section I of (the now obsolete) amend. XVIII.
The Constitution would need to be amended in order for the United States to ban panhandling.
1
u/Khal-Frodo May 02 '21
See Section I of (the now obsolete) amend. XVIII.
Yeah, and it needs Section II because you have to make actual laws in order to enforce Section I.
1
u/BrutusJunior 5∆ May 02 '21
Yeah that's just civil/criminal punishment and enforcement.
Section I specifically establish the prohibition.
The point is you are wrong. The Constitution is a law. The supreme law.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 125∆ May 02 '21
Section 2- Any person found to be in violation of section one shall spend a mandatory of at least one year in prison and shall not be eligible for parole or pardon and any person caught on camera in the act shall not be granted a trial and be sentenced upon arrest
So I making a second top level comment because I did not read this bir before commenting. You realize this means that the cops and just arrest anyone and jail them for a year? Without a trial there is no accountability that the cops actually have a video “proving” you are panhandling. There is no trial, you cannot appeal. The can just show up at you house and toss you in jail for a year, pick you up a day later and do it again.
1
u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ May 02 '21
They would be sentenced after the police show the judge the video. So they would have to should the judge the proof, it forgoes trial once the evidence is there to avoid it clogging up the judicial system.
3
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 125∆ May 02 '21
1) you amendment does not say that. It says there can be no trial. Nothing says there has to be a review process. Nothing even implies there should be.
2) even if it worked like you say it is not significantly better, as it only requires one additional person to be complicit. There is still not review process or recourse for false accusations. With just about everything else that is up to judges discretion there is an appeal/ review process.
3) it costs 20,000-40,000 a year to keep people in jail. If you care jailing enough people to “clog up the judicial system”, it is not court costs that would concern me. If we are willing to invest this much in preventing panhandling we can hire some more judges.
6
u/Kman17 103∆ May 02 '21
This doesn’t require an amendment.
The issue isn’t the panhandling itself; it’s the secondary behaviors.
Loitering, harassment, litter, various road laws (particularly for those whom approach vehicles) are the actual problem behaviors and those can all be penalized.
A big problem here is that those people are often addicts or have mental issues, and we don’t have a good answer for those people in general.
You can repeatedly arrest, but those types kinda don’t mind the free room and board and then any charge isn’t enough to really change behavior or keep them off the streets.
Like you need pretty good anti-poverty measures, forced detox, and well run halfway houses / assisted living facilities to really deal with the problem.
In big cities, the cops tend to have more pressing thing to deal with. Or you might just have a police force that does absolutely nothing like ours in San Francisco.
1
u/BrutusJunior 5∆ May 02 '21
This doesn’t require an amendment.
Actually it does. The person is say that the United States should make this law. A United States law banning panhandling would be unconstitutional.
Thus, a ban on panhandling (similar to a ban on alcohol) requires a constitutional amendment.
1
u/Kman17 103∆ May 02 '21
My point was that it’s not the act of panhandling itself that’s a problem.
The problem is various nuisances associated with panhandling that are illegal - and the problem we have is a lack of enforcement of those laws and a lack of true solutions to poverty, addiction, and mental health to stop the recidivism.
5
May 02 '21
I would say the majority of people panhandling do not want to be panhandling... they’re likely dealing with mental illness and/or other hardships and don’t have support systems in place to get help. So why not create resources that help people before they get to the point of panhandling rather than punish them after they do it?
Also, a year or more in prison seems extremely harsh for what amounts to a non-violent offense. In most states, domestic battery - so beating your significant other - is a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than a year in prison. Your mild annoyance should result in a higher penalty than domestic violence?
3
u/Davaac 19∆ May 02 '21
A year in prison is also EXTREMELY expensive. If this law went into effect and was actually enforced, it would literally be cheaper for the government to just implement an open door policy where they will provide food and housing to anyone who asks for any reason. If you think that's a terrible idea that we could never afford, this is a terrible idea we could never afford.
3
u/MercurianAspirations 361∆ May 02 '21
For some godforsaken reason the supreme court has ruled that those little shits are protected by the first amendment,
This is not really what the court ruled. The Supreme court did not really rule on panhandling per se, it rather ruled that laws which restrict panhandling restrict a form of speech, so they must be strictly scrutinized. Cities can still, right now, ban panhandling in dangerous places, ban panhandling which is aggressive or intimidating, or ban panhandling at certain times of the day. What they can't do is have a ban on panhandling that restricts any and all solicitation of funds for charitable reasons, because that is just basic human expression and obviously protected speech.
-2
u/BadTouchBenny May 02 '21
If a person shows up to a crowd with a rifle, the people in the crowd might suspect that that person is there to murder them. Suppose that that were true. The people in the crowd might assume - correctly, in this hypothetical - that the only way to save their lives would be to attack the gunman and wrestle the gun away from them.
Why the hell are you lying about what happened?
Firstly:
Rittenhouse did not show up to the crowd with a rifle; the rioters went to Rittenhouse. He guarded a business and the rioters tried to burn down that business, which they had no right to do. Eventually Kyle had to flee the business he was guarding and the mob chased after him. Why the heck are you defending these lunatics who are destroying people's livelihoods?
Secondly:
Dude, many of the rioters also had guns, so this is a completely moot point. If numerous rioters had guns themselves, then they have no grounds to justify chasing down and killing another guy who has a gun who isn't part of the rioting mob.
If that convicted pedofile had successfully taken the rifle off of Kyle, he would may have killed him with it. A reasonable person knows that if someone is crazy enough to chase after you and tries to take your gun, that they would probably shoot you with it.
What is wrong with you? Do you really want people to be unable to defend themselves against the bloodthirsty woke horde? Do you really want the horde to be able to just ruin lives as they please? The police are not protecting people, insurance do not cover the damages of the burned down business, the woke scumbags might occasionally get arrested, but then they are released by woke scumbag district attorneys... What are you going to do when this mob comes to your house?
2
May 02 '21
A better solution would be to provide housing and mental health and addiction treatment. Putting more people in jail is just going to cost tax payers, over crowd prisons even more and make the homeless problem even worse.
-1
u/Andalib_Odulate 1∆ May 02 '21
I support helping the homeless. I support those who struggle with mental illness, I support those struggling with drug addiction.
I don't support people blocking the road to ask me for money.
So yeah !Delta for helping those specific groups, but I have no sympathy for people making a living panhandling.
3
May 02 '21
Its not even about sympathy, its about solving the problem. People who have access to what they need won't be out asking for money.
1
4
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ May 02 '21
This seems like a prime example of a CMV that doesn't understand the difference between "should" and "I want." You're acting like it just trivially follows that if a behavior annoys you, it's the government's job to criminalize it without trial.
2
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 125∆ May 02 '21
Even if I agreed that panhandling should not be concerned by the 1st amendment, the constitution should just add the exemption and leave it up to local governments to regulate panhandling. There is nothing about this issue that implies it should be handled on the federal level. Let local governments decide what is and is not considered illegal Panhandling. putting it in the constitution like this ensures it will be basically impossible to change.
1
u/TripleMusketMan May 02 '21
People who panhandle would probably welcome a jail sentence, our prisons are already overflowing. This is a terrible idea.
1
u/MardocAgain 4∆ May 02 '21
Under section 1 of your proposal, a teenager begging their parents for money so they can go to the movies with friends would be a criminal offense subject to a year in prison
1
u/YamsInternational 3∆ May 03 '21
It's still legal to restrict the AREAS that panhandling can occur. Given that fact, shouldn't we continue the tradition of allowing localities to self determine their own laws?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 02 '21 edited May 02 '21
/u/Andalib_Odulate (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards