> literal years in prison for taking a shit where they "shouldn't"

No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying. Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context.

And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced.

> such harsh measures in secret

Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures? Some people try to raise children without rules and they always do more harm than good. Especially trying to avoid such simple rules about reasonable boundaries.

> No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying.

In reply to the issue of how we should be punishing "petty" street crimes, the commenter I was replying to said,

> An exponential back off from society

In my experience, exponentials grow pretty quickly. So yeah, it kinda seems like that's what they were implying.

> Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context.

Give me the context in which pooping anywhere, any number of times seems reasonable to punish with significant jail time. Yes, there should be some form of discouragement from this but making sure people have access to a toilet seems a lot easier.

> And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced.

Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work.

> Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures?

Yeah, I actually believe depriving people of their freedom of movement is a really big deal.

"Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work."

The chronically homeless drug addicts of san francisco that everyone is concerned with are beyond helping. For the worst 1-10% that stir up all of the news and fears, the solution here is not a treatment plan and release back to society. These folks should not go to solitarty confinement, or even a normal jail, but we absolutely need a long term mental health detention facility process for these folks. Many of these people (1) cause a huge negative impact to everyone around them through their antisocial behavior (2) have a huge cost to society through their consumption of public resources like 911 calls, police/fire/emergency room visits street cleaning of shit (3) these people absolutely refuse any voluntary treatment options up to and including supportive housing that allows drugs and alcohol. They don't want to live in apartments, they don't really even have the concept of agency that we understand, they are so far gone that they need to be cared for by the state in a higher capacity then they are right now.

> Give me the context in which pooping anywhere, any number of times seems reasonable to punish with significant jail time.

Sure, even doing it just once if I were to do it in your living room. Or in front of your house, if I had a reasonable alternative.

> Yes, there should be some form of discouragement from this but making sure people have access to a toilet seems a lot easier.

Okay, so you are fine with arresting anyone who simply won't use the provided toilet? Great.

What if I don't put the toilet right in my yard, but put the toilet over there somewhere, so you're not all up in my space? Why is 'right here' the magical place where people must camp and poop?

> Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes.

That's far from true in all contexts. Unhoused criminals on the streets of a modern drug city face incredible risk from being left to live in the camps, and jail doesn't necessarily mean supermax anyways.

> Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work.

How wonderfully liberal.

I'm for forcing people into the treatment that's proven to work rather than kindly letting them die horribly.

maybe not prison but a detention and mental health care facility, but yes generally agreed with the above comment. My wife is a dr at a hospital in SF and treats many chronically homeless patients for various issues. There are about 1-2k chronically homeless folks in SF who need treatment against their will/desires (their desires are either to continue drug use until they die or their desires are unintelligible), and the large majority of them will never recover to a point where they will be in a point where they can live outside of an inpatient mental health hospital/detention facility.

I am not opposed to involuntary treatment. I did not let "A Clockwork Orange" disproportionately shape my world view as it seems so many in the intervening generations have. I grew up with family members who required in-patient mental healthcare more than once. And I understand that letting people persistent in psychosis is not "letting them be themselves".

I believe though that making acts which people do in private, severely punishable when performed in public for want of private spaces is a depraved form of puritanical virtue mongering. I don't believe the constitution gives people an absolute right to "virgin eyes" or "virgin ears". And that is a personal judgement you will not convince me of otherwise.

Are you referring to public defection and/or drug use or screaming at the top of one’s lungs for hours at a time?

Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views. Hygiene, noise, environmental ordinances and such!

We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large.

Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything (except in a legal forum) as it is a living document (albeit with a high bar) and more recently demonstrated through overturning judicial rulings.

> Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views.

So why such a consistent obsession with making them stop or tolerating these acts done in private. If public health is the concern wouldn't needle exchanges, public toilets and street cleaning would be practical solutions? (I guess I should say Victorian rather than Puritanical.)

> We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large.

Which ones?

> Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything

As far as I knew it was the basic document which outlined how rights between people and between people and the star should be balanced. And while it has a lot to say about rights to liberty, I find little to indicate we have a right to not see unpleasant things in public.

I don't think the status quo is good. I don't like avoiding shit on the sidewalk. I don't like explaining to my son why a man is stupified with a needle sticking out of his arm.

But I weigh those unpleasant events against throwing people against the system and taking their freedom and it's clear to me that their right to liberty outweighs my right to a pleasant Sunday stroll.

I think there is a moral imperative to change but I think turning once again towards creating a heartless state bureaucracy and pitting it against people who have absolutely nothing is not the change we need. I know that these people have been kicked over and over and over again and that to keep kicking is not a thing that makes sense. They are numb to the pain and you will not change them. You will only show how hard you can kick.

> So why such a consistent obsession with making them stop or tolerating these acts done in private.

My point was that the underlying reason for not tolerating these acts is not because they are being done in public. Them being done in public does make them more obvious and a more pressing concern than if done in private.

There is a concerning obsession if they are done in private as well. And there are efforts to curtail use of drugs, mental health support, and so many such programs for people who partake or suffer in private as well. It doesn’t extend to curtailing their liberties - in that you are correct.

Once it starts spilling into the public, it has an effect on society to a greater degree that when in private. Public hygiene and quality of life standards for a majority are being inhibited because of a minority.

The “obsession” is warranted if the symptoms are getting worse. I want “obsession” to be proportional to the scale of the problem.

> If public health is the concern wouldn't needle exchanges, public toilets and street cleaning would be practical solutions?

Agreed, agreed and agreed :) solutions to symptoms and not the problem though.

>> We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large.

> Which ones?

Many of the ones from the example ordinances I’ve listed. You cannot blare music any any time of the night. You cannot do home construction however you want to. You cannot chop down trees (within reason), pollute streams, burn trash on your private property. You cannot route your waste drain to the street…. And so many more.

> I don't think the status quo is good. I don't like avoiding shit on the sidewalk. I don't like explaining to my son why a man is stupified with a needle sticking out of his arm.

We are on the same page again.

> But I weigh those unpleasant events against throwing people against the system and taking their freedom and it's clear to me that their right to liberty outweighs my right to a pleasant Sunday stroll.

It’s not just a Sunday stroll. It’s also normalizing the behavior to a certain extent by leaving it unchecked.

Also, I do not see any “liberty” on the streets when the people on question barely have the mental wherewithal to think clearly. We don’t let people with mental defects from birth live on the streets no matter their age. Social services curtails their liberty quite severely when compared to you and me more often than not by keeping them in institutions that can care for them. The care is not great in any sense of the word but we also don’t let them live on the streets in the name of liberty. But if they become mentally deficient to the extent of a person who was born with such defects due to their independent actions then we somehow cannot take away some of their liberties. That’s hypocritical. We also take away liberty from people who commit crimes - there is precedent to do so. It needs to be weighed against societal good not “feel good” morality. One is measurable and feelings generally aren’t.

Liberty is a sliding scale not an absolute.

> I think there is a moral imperative to change but I think turning once again towards creating a heartless state bureaucracy and pitting it against people who have absolutely nothing is not the change we need.

Bureaucracy by definition is heartless. Paper pushing that is… the people who administer it are the ones with hearts. Don’t falter bureaucracy for the lack of trained people who can work with those who need the help. There are thousands of people who live in our system who honestly want to help. They are restricted by the resources available to them. The people who have absolutely nothing are better off in a heartless bureaucracy than on the streets dying by the droves with life expectancies approaching that of pre-historic human beings. That is more heartless.

> I know that these people have been kicked over and over and over again and that to keep kicking is not a thing that makes sense.

Leaving them be is just another version of kicking them. Doing nothing is just as extreme as jailing them. We need to do something that is in between those two extremes. In any solution though - any at all - liberties will be infringed upon. I suggest not using infringing on liberties as an argument against doing something in this situation. Because curtailing liberty will be part of any solution to combat a disease that takes over rational thought.

Meta point - I think we are mostly on the same page to be honest. Thank you for debating. I hope my arguments do not come off as haughty or attacking. I’ve had a couple of night caps when posting this so please excuse my ramblings if any.