Latest news with #criminalization
Associated Press
12-08-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Silicon Valley lawmakers want to decriminalize homelessness
As cities across California ban homeless encampments and Gov. Gavin Newsom encourages more sweeps, San Jose lawmakers are standing up against criminalizing homelessness. State Sen. Sasha Perez along with Assemblymembers Ash Kalra, Alex Lee and Matt Haney have co-authored a bill that would make it illegal for cities to prohibit organizations or people from helping homeless residents. Senate Bill 643 has passed the Senate and is being considered in the Assembly. 'Providing for those that are in need is a value we should uphold and celebrate, not criminalize,' Kalra, whose district includes parts of San Jose, Morgan Hill and Gilroy, told San José Spotlight. He wants the bill to pass, but acknowledges there will be pressure from cities to prevent it from going through. Lee, whose district includes North San Jose, Milpitas and Fremont, said homelessness is a societal failure, not a personal choice — and preventing criminalization is necessary to alleviate the crisis. 'What cities like Fremont and San Jose have done only exacerbate the housing crisis and serve as political theater with no real long-term results to show for,' Lee told San José Spotlight. Last year's Grants Pass Supreme Court ruling made it possible for jurisdictions to ban homeless encampments on public property, even if there's an insufficient number of shelter beds. Since then, Fremont leaders have attempted to prohibit groups from providing aid to homeless people and San Jose enacted a policy in June to arrest homeless people who repeatedly refuse shelter. Yet homelessness in Santa Clara County has continued to rise. According to this year's count, homelessness has skyrocketed to more than 10,700 people, of which 7,472 are unsheltered. San Jose's homeless population experienced an increase of 237 homeless people from two years ago, up to 6,503 residents. About 60% are unsheltered, or 3,959 people. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said each city should have the ability to tackle homelessness the way it sees fit. He's focused on building tiny homes and converting motels into temporary homeless housing as the solution to ending people sleeping on streets. Over the past year, San Jose has built 524 shelter beds or spaces, with more coming online later this year. The city has ramped up its encampment sweeps, clearing more than 500 camps last fiscal year. 'No one-size-fits-all solution exists for homelessness — just as each individual facing homelessness has unique needs, so does each city,' Mahan told San José Spotlight. 'While we support compassionate efforts to help those in need, we believe local governments must maintain the authority to manage services in ways that balance public safety with effective support.' Monica Porter Gilbert, senior mental health policy advocate from Disability Rights California, said there's not enough shelter beds or affordable housing for people who want it when addressing San Jose's policy to arrest those who refuse shelter. According to a San José Spotlight's exclusive compilation of data, there is only one shelter bed for every three homeless people across the county. Most of the bed space is in San Jose, which has 2,989 beds. In addition, the city and county are lagging far behind on affordable housing production. San Jose is mandated by the state to build 62,200 homes by 2031, of which 34,486 must be affordable. So far, San Jose has completed 3,586 homes in the current cycle, which runs from 2023 to 2031. 'What that means is that no matter what an individual or family does, there are still going to be hundreds of thousands of Californians forced to live outside until the government actually addresses the need,' Gilbert told San José Spotlight. Although San Jose does not prohibit groups from providing assistance to homeless people, Kalra said any city under the federal ruling could enact legislation to further criminalize homelessness. 'Sweeping encampments and arresting people in a community where you don't have enough housing for everyone is cruelty,' Kalra said. 'It's both intellectually and morally lazy to just revert to what might be politically popular, to clear out those (whom) folks may not want to see. But it takes real compassion and thoughtfulness to think of how we can actually uplift those who are struggling the most.' ___ This story was originally published by San José Spotlight and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
ABC News
05-06-2025
- General
- ABC News
Are we doing enough to tackle forced marriage in Australia?
Being forced to marry someone against your will is a crime in Australia, but one support service says its getting more than five people contacting them each week who are at risk of or in a forced marriage . The practice was outlawed in Australia in 2013 but so far only one person, a 48 year old woman from regional Victoria, has been convicted under the law. So is criminalisation the right approach or do we need to be looking at other solutions? GUEST: Panos Massouris, director of the forced marriage support program, Life without Barriers Nesreen Bottriell, CEO, Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
La. proposed bill to criminalize ‘intentional exposure' to STDs, advances
LOUISIANA (KTAL/KMSS) — A Louisiana House bill to criminalize those who intentionally expose others to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) without their consent has moved forward and is awaiting deliberation on the House floor. Louisiana State Representative Patricia 'Pat' Moore (D-Monroe) stated that she has been approached by victims who have contracted incurable STDs from offenders, former partners, or spouses. Her goal is to establish criminal charges, both felonies and misdemeanors, for individuals who intentionally expose others to STDs. House Bill 76 was initially shelved on May 7; however, on May 28, 2025, it was Moore amended the proposal the night before the hearing to include rape and sexual battery, 'to criminalize and fine, not more than $5,000, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both.' Nonprofit groups testified against this bill, including the Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health. U.S. Air Force veteran and member of LCCH, Jazmine Carroll, gave testimony discussing her concerns regarding HB76. 'I oppose this bill because I believe that it discourages people from getting tested, because you can only be accused of intentionally exposing your disease to somebody if you know your status. And so, this puts people who know their status at an in and at a higher risk than those who don't.' Carroll is also pursuing a Master's in Public Health, and shares that women are routinely tested for HPV, thus have higher rates of HPV, specifically cervical cancer. 'HPV is only currently diagnosed through routine pap smears that women receive to detect signs of cervical cancer. There is no similarly approved routine HPV test for men. That means that the burden of diagnosis and disclosure will disproportionately fall on women, and that this bill would disproportionately affect, stigmatize, and criminalize women even if they're doing everything right,' said a physician during the House testimonials. During Carroll's testimony, she also highlighted how women in the military experience higher rates of intimate partner violence. She shared that when women in the military disclose their experience, they are often faced with violence. Moore says HB76 specifically targets individuals living with common 'incurable STIs' such as HIV, herpes, HPV, and Hepatitis B. Louisiana bill that would ban fluoride in public drinking water fails in committee 'I just have a problem with no accountability,' emphasised Moore. When asked if it would also pertain to congenital STDs (diseases passed from mother to fetus), Representative Moore said she was unsure. However, she would need to discuss this further with her constituents. 'You're born with it, and it's incurable but manageable, but still, you are aware of this. And if you, your spouse, your partner, or whatever the case may be, if you know that you have this incurable disease, manageable or whatever the case may be, and you did not inform that person, then yes, this would apply to you. But again, I'm not referring to those who are born with it. You know, because this may take years, right?' said Moore the night before the hearing. Carroll said a significant concern is how one proves they disclosed their STD to their partner. 'Let's say someone who let's say I was having sex with someone, and they knew their status, they told me they were living with HPV, and I had no clue that I was already living with HPV. So there's a chance that I could have acquired that from a previous relationship. But because I hadn't been tested quite yet, I could assume that I had transmitted that infection from my partner. And even if my partner discloses that to me, let's say we don't have it written down or there's no witness, it would be very difficult to prove that my partner had disclosed that to me, and I had agreed and consented to that interaction,' says Carroll. La. Treasurer John Fleming on U.S. Senate run, insurance reform, state pension funds, and school choice In the proposed substitute bill, Representative Moore underscores 'not just exposing but infecting,' which would include survivors of sexual abuse. 'That they're they're going to have to be accountable to. So you have an incurable disease. You're now in the same boat as the offender,' says Moore, 'You've got to inform because, you know, so you've got to make sure your partner or whoever is aware of your situation.' Carroll said she is concerned this bill will encourage people not to get tested for STDs, as it only affects those who knowingly infect others. 'There was another woman who gave a testimony and said that she had disclosed her status to her husband when she was living with HIV, and he threatened to harm her had she or if she had decided to leave or he threatened to continue to harm her if she decided to leave, and if she did leave, then she had to prove that she had disclosed her status to him,' said Carroll. She reiterates that choosing to disclose one's STD status is a private and personal conversation, but believes accountability is essential, and it starts with 'strengthening the way that we protect victims and survivors of sexual abuse and assault.' 'So, I believe that we have the same intentions. And I mean, intention is the word of the day, I guess. And so I believe that we all want justice,' says Carroll, 'That was something that was constantly said in the courtroom, when I was there, was that these survivors deserve justice in that we deserve justice, and I agree. But I think, as the Criminal Justice Committee, it is their responsibility to think critically about what justice means and what that looks like. And that doesn't necessarily always mean sending people to prison, or punishing them.' The bill proposes that those who intentionally expose victims under the age of 18 years, and over the age of 65, 'shall be fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than ten nor more than 25 years, or both.' During the Administration of Criminal Justice hearing, on May 28th, the proposed bill received seven ayes and five nays, moving it forward, pending floor debate on Monday, June 2, 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Guardian
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on abortion prosecutions: decriminalisation can't wait
The Crown Prosecution Service has yet to explain why it thought that pursuing a case against Nicola Packer was in the public interest. Thankfully, jurors last week cleared the 45-year-old of illegally terminating her pregnancy. But more than four years of police and criminal proceedings have had a lasting impact on a woman already traumatised by discovering that she was 26 weeks pregnant, not about 10, when she acted. The trial dragged her private life – even her sexual preferences – into the public eye. Understandably, she called it 'humiliating'. But it is prosecutors who should feel shame. Ms Packer was prescribed abortion pills in a remote consultation, due to a Covid lockdown. Prosecutors alleged that she deliberately breached the abortion time limit. Jurors believed Ms Packer, who said that she was horrified to realise how advanced her pregnancy was when she saw the foetus and that she 'wouldn't have put the baby or myself through it' had she known. Her case is an extreme one, but part of a growing trend. About 100 women are believed to have been investigated for possible illegal abortions in the last five years, with five cases coming to court in 2023. Before then, only three women were thought to have been prosecuted since abortion was made illegal in 1861. The judgment of the CPS was appalling. But the underlying issue is the criminalisation of abortion. The 1967 Abortion Act did not repeal the Victorian law but created exemptions under set conditions, leading to the wide availability of the procedure. The remote prescription of pills for early abortions has more recently expanded access. Many campaigners and politicians have been reluctant to re-open the abortion issue for fear the debate could be exploited and lead to reduced availability, for example through pressure to lower the term limit, now 24 weeks apart from in exceptional circumstances. Abortion's legality, and the conditions of its availability, are distinct though related issues. But the surge in investigations, along with the influx of money and influence from anti-abortion activists invigorated by their triumph in the US, have persuaded many people that legislative change is now necessary. Medical opinion has swung decisively behind decriminalisation. More than 30 organisations – including the British Medical Association and the royal colleges of midwives, obstetricians and gynaecologists, nurses and GPs – have condemned the 'trauma and cruelty' caused by the law and said that abortion should be simply a healthcare matter. In Canada, where abortion has been legal for more than three decades, rates have been stable and the proportion of later abortions has fallen. Criminalising the rare women who obtain abortions after the term limit, often vulnerable individuals in difficult circumstances, is unlikely to deter such cases. But it may deter them – and other women who have acted near the term limit or have miscarried naturally – from seeking medical help. MPs have already decriminalised abortion in Northern Ireland. In coming weeks, they have the opportunity to do so in the rest of the UK, thanks to two amendments tabled to the policing bill by Labour backbenchers. The first, from Tonia Antoniazzi, has widespread backing, including from more than 50 MPs across parties. Stella Creasy believes her alternative amendment would ensure that decriminalisation did not open the door to abortion access being tightened via secondary legislation in future. MPs may well be concerned, however, that it raises constitutional issues, and this additional complexity could deter them from backing change. The choice between two amendments, introduced with the best intentions, must not hole the campaign for decriminalisation. MPs must coalesce to push through change. There must be no more Nicola Packers.
