September 2024 – Parks & Recreation - 31

The Supreme Court, however, found the Eighth
Amendment did not " address what a government may
criminalize and how it may go about securing a conviction. "
Unlike the Eighth Amendment's focus on punishment,
in the opinion of the Court, other constitutional
provisions would govern criminal liability procedures:
The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments ensure that officials may not displace certain
rules associated with criminal liability....
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require prosecutors
and courts to observe various procedures before denying
any person of his liberty, promising for example that every
person enjoys the right to confront his accusers and have
serious criminal charges resolved by a jury of his peers.
Accordingly, in the opinion of the Supreme Court,
the Eighth Amendment provided " a poor foundation on
which to rest the kind of decree the Plaintiffs seek in this
case and the Ninth Circuit has endorsed since Martin " :
The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses
on the question what " method or kind of punishment " a
government may impose after a criminal conviction, not
on the question whether a government may criminalize
particular behavior in the first place or how it may go
about securing a conviction for that offense.
Moreover, in this particular case, the Supreme Court
found " the criminal punishments Grants Pass imposes "
in no way " qualify as cruel and unusual " punishment
under the Eighth Amendment:
[U]nder the city's ordinances, an initial offense may
trigger a civil fine. Repeat offenses may trigger an order
temporarily barring an individual from camping in a
public park. Only those who later violate an order like
that may face a criminal punishment of up to 30 days in
jail and a larger fine. None of the city's sanctions [qualify]
as cruel because none [are] designed to superadd [i.e.,
increase] terror, pain, or disgrace.
The Court further noted the anti-camping ordinances
in the City of Grants Pass merely " forbids actions
like occupying a campsite on public property for the
purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live " :
Under the city's laws, it makes no difference whether
the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation
passing through town, or a student who abandons
his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a
municipal building.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held the Eighth
Amendment " does nothing to curtail a State's authority
to secure a conviction " when " the accused has commitPARK
S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | SEP T EMBER 2 0 2 4 | Parks & Recreation
31
ted some act society has an interest in preventing. " As
characterized by the Court, these anti-camping laws essentially
proscribed a type of conduct regardless of one's
status, and therefore, enforcement of these laws criminalizes
a certain type of behavior, the act of camping,
not the " mere status " of being involuntarily homeless.
Legal Protection Alternatives
In addition, the Supreme Court noted " a variety of other
legal doctrines and constitutional provisions work to protect
those in our criminal justice system from a conviction " :
Like some other jurisdictions, Oregon recognizes a
" necessity " defense to certain criminal charges. It may be
that defense extends to charges for illegal camping when
it comes to those with nowhere else to go. Insanity, diminished
capacity, and duress defenses also may be available
in many jurisdictions....
For its part, the Constitution provides many additional
limits on state prosecutorial power, promising fair notice
of the laws and equal treatment under them, forbidding
selective prosecutions, and much more besides.
September 2024 – Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2024 – Parks & Recreation
