View previous stories
	Decriminalization of homelessness and extreme poverty by OHCHR, ICJ, Penal Reform International, agencies OHCHR, Penal Reform International, University of Pennsylvania   June 2024   Decriminalization of homelessness and extreme poverty   UN human rights experts have called on governments to scrap “cruel and counterproductive” laws that are leading to people living in homelessness and poverty being arrested, fined or subjected to degrading punishment for carrying out activities in public that are vital for their survival.   A new study published by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, and the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Olivier De Schutter, documents a growing body of evidence showing that men, women and children living in homelessness and poverty are increasingly facing criminal penalties, fines and sanctions for activities such as sleeping, washing, cooking, eating, begging and working on the street.   “Instead of addressing the global affordable housing and inequality crises, which are primarily responsible for homelessness, governments are increasingly turning to outdated and vague vagrancy laws, many of which have their roots in colonial rule, to move people off the streets and make them disappear,” Rajagopal said.   “Homelessness is a sign of State and social failure, rooted in policy and institutional factors. However, it is politically convenient, and bows to populist pressure, to criminalise vulnerable people for engaging in activities, such as sleeping in public, that the rest of us have the privilege of carrying out in the privacy of our own homes.   “These laws will not solve homelessness or poverty. They are in direct violation of international human rights and must be urgently repealed.”   The study finds that criminalising people who are living in homelessness does not reduce the number of people in street situations, but instead pushes them further into poverty.   “These laws result in a double punishment: people are punished first when they are pushed into homelessness and again when they are sanctioned. They are cruel, counterproductive and a disproportionate response even to any legitimate safety or public health concern presented by homelessness,” De Schutter said.   “Added to the high human cost of criminalising individuals for behaviours that should not be subject to punishment, is the huge cost to the taxpayer of law-enforcement, fine collection, judicial sanctioning, detention or imprisonment – resources that would see a much higher return if invested in long-term, safe housing and social services.”   The experts urged governments to repeal blanket prohibitions against begging, to reallocate resources from law enforcement to addressing the root causes of poverty and homelessness, to abolish prison sentences for those that can’t afford to pay fines, to expunge criminal records of sanctioned individuals, and to resort to non-custodial measures for minor offences of persons living in homelessness.   “Homelessness and poverty are growing because of political choices that are making a decent income and adequate housing a distant dream for millions,” Rajagopal said. “This must be addressed. Relying on law enforcement will not solve the problem.”   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/governments-must-urgently-scrap-unfair-laws-criminalising-homelessness-and   Decriminalization of homelessness and extreme poverty. (OHCHR)   In many States persons experiencing homelessness, living in poverty or vulnerability are disproportionately subjected to fines, deportation, arbitrary arrest, or detention for petty offences or conduct that is necessary to survive, such as informal street vending, waste collection, sex work, begging, sleeping, cooking or eating in public places. Persons who are unable to pay fines for petty offences, such as riding public transport without a valid ticket, continue to be imprisoned in many countries.   Such sanctions do not only raise human rights concerns; they also congest the criminal justice system with issues that should be better addressed by other measures and policies tackling the root causes of homelessness or poverty.   The Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights (A/HRC/21/39), adopted by Human Rights Council resolution 21/11 in September 2012 underline that States should "repeal and reform any laws that criminalize life-sustaining activities in public places, such as sleeping, begging, eating or performing personal hygiene activities".   Furthermore States should "review sanctions procedures that require the payment of disproportionate fines by persons living in poverty, especially those related to begging, use of public space and welfare fraud, and consider abolishing prison sentences for non-payment of fines for those unable to pay".   The Guidelines for the Implementation of the Right to Adequate Housing (A/HRC/43/43), specify that "States should prohibit and address discrimination on the ground of homelessness or other housing status and repeal all laws and measures that criminalize or penalize homeless people or behaviour associated with being homeless, such as sleeping or eating in public spaces.   The forced eviction of homeless persons from public spaces and the destruction of their personal belongings must be prohibited. Homeless persons should be equally protected from interference with privacy and the home, wherever they are living."   They further recommend: "States should provide, within their justice system, alternative procedures for dealing with minor offences of homeless people to help them break the cycle of criminalization, incarceration and homelessness and secure the right to housing."   Similarly in June 2020 the Human Rights Council called in resolution 43/14 on States to "take all measures necessary to eliminate legislation that criminalized homelessness."   The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing and the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights have invited States, local Governments, civil society organizations, National Human Rights Institutions, national associations working with the homeless, and other relevant stakeholders to make submissions that are now available online to inform a joint report on the Decriminalization of homelessness and extreme poverty.   The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on the decriminalization of homelessness and extreme poverty.   International human rights law and standards require States to address the root causes of homelessness and poverty and to provide support to those experiencing them. States’ failure to do so often amounts to violations of their international human rights law obligations to realize a range of human rights, including the rights to adequate housing, work and social security, for example, under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.   Under international human rights law, States are legally obliged to address the plight of those experiencing homelessness and those living in poverty. Very often, however, States not only fail to comply with these obligations but, making matters worse, subject people experiencing homelessness and poverty to harsh criminal law sanctions solely for conduct that is critical to their survival.   In this context, the ICJ is particularly concerned that in many national jurisdictions people commonly continue to be imprisoned if they are unable to pay fines for minor “criminal infractions”.   Overall, decriminalizing homelessness and extreme poverty is not only consistent with general principles of criminal law and States’ legal obligations under international human right law, but it also a necessary step to begin addressing the root causes of the violations of economic and social rights of particularly marginalized persons.   The ICJ submission underscores that, instead of enacting and enforcing criminal laws with a disproportionate impact on such persons, under international human rights law, States are required to provide all people with the opportunity to rebuild their lives and fully integrate into society while respecting their dignity and human rights.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2023/call-input-decriminalization-homelessness-and-extreme-poverty http://decrimpovertystatus.org http://decrimpovertystatus.org/poor-not-guilty http://evictionlab.org/rising-rents-and-evictions-linked-to-premature-death/ http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/10/426426/homeless-people-are-16-times-more-likely-die-suddenly http://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/14/us-los-angeles-criminalizes-unhoused-people http://www.wiego.org/informal-economy/poverty-growth-linkages http://gcap.global/ http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-urges-action-end-global-affordable-housing-crisis http://www.habitat.org/ap/home-equals-ap http://www.iied.org/better-for-everyone-exposing-hidden-value-equitable-housing-informal-settlements http://tinyurl.com/2fvn7hp2 http://www.iied.org/tag/informal-settlements-slums http://sdinet.org/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/01/states-obligated-safeguard-equitable-access-and-use-land-un-committee http://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/annual-thematic-reports http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2021/10/joint-statement-independent-united-nations-human-rights-experts-warning-threat   The over-penalisation of poverty through fines and fees, by Jean Galbraith, Rheem Brooks - Penal Reform International, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School   In many countries around the world, criminal justice fines disproportionately affect the poorest and most marginalised in society, effectively creating tiered justice systems.   In this article, Jean Galbraith and Rheem Brooks from the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School summarise the findings of new research and discuss what international human rights and criminal justice communities can do to combat the use of poverty penalties.   Fines are a common sanction in countries in all regions of the world. They also pose a significant risk of economic discrimination.   Unless they are perfectly scaled to defendants’ financial circumstances, they over-penalise people living in poverty both directly and by triggering additional sanctions where defendants cannot afford to pay.   These effects add up to what we call “poverty penalties”: tougher punishments for low-income people resulting from inadequately scaled fines and their snowballing consequences.   In our article “Poverty Penalties as Human Rights Problems” published in the American Journal of International Law in July 2023 together with five other co-authors, we explore harmful poverty penalties around the world and discuss the human rights concerns they raise.   We have drawn on the work of domestic scholars, activists, and journalists to identify laws or practices in many countries, including (among others): Australia, Brazil, China, Croatia, Denmark, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, Ghana, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.   Examples of poverty penalties   Poverty penalties come in many forms. Consider the following varieties:   Using fines and costs without adequate attention to individual financial circumstances. Financial sanctions are often imposed without adequately considering the financial situation of the person charged. Many countries set mandatory minimums on certain fines.   In Qatar, for example, the fine for intentionally bouncing a check is a minimum of QR 3,000. Even in countries that use “day fines” (income-based fines theoretically scaled to a person’s ability to pay), these fines may be set too high. In 2016, nearly 8,000 people entered German prisons for the petty crime of fare evasion because they couldn’t pay their day fines.   Incarcerating for failure to pay fines. In many countries, if you can’t pay a fine, the typical consequence is imprisonment. In Kenya, for example, Penal Code Section 28 provides that whenever a person is sentenced to a fine, the court may order prison time for defaults on payment of that fine, even if the offence was originally punishable only by a fine.   These practices are especially troubling for people in poverty who may never be able to afford the fines in the first place.   Piling on more fines, costs, and fees. Failing to pay fines and fees can result in additional financial sanctions, including through the use of unrealistic installment payment plans.   These practices can create a snowballing cycle of debt that is nearly impossible for people living in poverty to escape. For example, in South Korea, if someone cannot pay their fine for a minor offence, then Article 8 of the Punishment of Minor Offences Act provides that they must pay the fine plus a 20% surcharge within twenty days of the original payment deadline. Per Article 9 of that same act, failure to pay by the new deadline can result in additional fines.   Imposing other legal sanctions for defaulting on fine payments. People who fail to pay fines may be subject to other legal sanctions, like drivers’ license suspensions, denial of access to social welfare, or loss of voting privileges.   In Brazil, for instance, people can be removed from voter rolls and lose their right to work for nonpayment of fines. Drivers’ license suspensions are common in the United States, where, as of 2021, at least 11 million people could not drive because of their inability to pay fines and fees.   Fining socially marginalised communities. Fining practices can target or disproportionally harm people who are already vulnerable because of race, gender, disability, or other protected statuses.   During the COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom and France, for example, fines for violating the lockdown fell disproportionately on people of colour, raising concerns not just about disproportionate effects but also about intentional targeting.   Although we give only one or two examples for each of these practices here, our research uncovered many more (as discussed in our article). It is clear that nations around the world over-penalise low-income people through their uses of financial sanctions, even though the degree of over-penalisation can vary considerably from place to place.   Poverty penalties raise grave human rights concerns   Poverty penalties are a global issue. They have the effect of discriminating against low-income people, often lead to imprisonment, and can result in other disproportionately harsh punishments. These fining practices are counterproductive for states striving to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal of “ending poverty in all its forms.”   Our article highlights how these practices may undermine international human rights instruments. In particular, these practices raise serious human rights concerns under the ICCPR and ICESCR. They can constitute discrimination on the basis of property. They can subject people to arbitrary arrest and detention because of their inability to pay.   They can amount to disproportionally harsh punishments and intrude on the free enjoyment of economic rights by trapping low-income people in a cycle of never-ending debt.   And they frequently target or disproportionately affect racial minorities and other socially marginalised groups. These are serious concerns that the international human rights community must address.   Innovators tackling poverty penalties offer a blueprint for future work   There is growing attention to the issue of poverty penalties, both domestically and internationally. Below are some examples of recent progress in this area:   In South Korea, Jean Valjean Bank, a microcredit group, has begun lending money to people incarcerated for their inability to pay their criminal fines. Its goal is to create a more equitable system where people living in poverty are no longer imprisoned simply because they are unable to pay.   In Ghana, the NGO Crime Check Foundation launched the Petty Offenders Project to pay criminal fines for people charged with petty offences, sentenced to pay fines that they could not pay, and subsequently ordered to serve between three to twelve months in prison for defaulting.   In the United States, the highest court in Washington State struck down economic sanctions of $547 imposed for a parking infraction on a Native American man living in poverty and experiencing homelessness. The court held that the financial sanctions were excessive fines and therefore unconstitutional.   The Campaign to Decriminalise Poverty and Status brought together an international group of advocates, experts, and activists to address the routine criminalisation of poverty around the world. The resulting Cape Declaration on Decriminalising Poverty and Status noted that the use of fines and other financial sanctions creates a “two-tier system of justice” that disproportionately harms low-income people.   Several UN Special Rapporteurs have raised grave concerns about fines imposed on low-income people, including in the United States and Cambodia.   These are just some examples of this important work around the world. Our article identifies harmful fining practices, analyses how they raise grave human rights concerns, and proposes reforms. But our work was limited to the languages our research team speaks and the data we could find.   We call on stakeholders to examine fining practices in their jurisdictions and evaluate whether these too can act as poverty penalties in practice. With more data, international human rights and criminal justice communities can begin to combat the scourge of poverty penalties.   http://www.penalreform.org/blog/the-over-penalisation-of-poverty-through-fines-and http://tinyurl.com/3zuffpeh http://decrimpovertystatus.org http://decrimpovertystatus.org/poor-not-guilty http://www.penalreform.org/blog/five-takeaways-from-csw68-on-the-criminalisation-of/ http://www.equaltimes.org/in-prison-for-debt-thousands-of Visit the related web page
	Ending child poverty is vital for a sustainable future by Olivier De Schutter, Hugh Frazer, Eric Marlier Bristol University Press, agencies   Ending child poverty is vital for a sustainable future, write Olivier De Schutter, Hugh Frazer, Anne-Catherine Guio and Eric Marlier.   The vicious cycles perpetuating poverty and disadvantage across generations have enormous economic, social and environmental costs. Ending them is essential for a sustainable future. Above all this requires urgent and radical action to tackle the deep-seated inequalities causing child poverty.   The future wellbeing and indeed survival of increasing numbers of children across the world is more and more at risk. Already too many children are growing up in poverty and the perpetuation of poverty from one generation to the next is deeply entrenched.   Poverty disproportionately affects households with children: children are twice as likely to live in extreme poverty as adults. Globally, approximately 800 million children aged 0–18 years are subsisting below a poverty line of US $3.20 a day, and one billion children are experiencing multidimensional poverty, with multiple deprivations in the areas of health, nutrition, education or standards of living, including housing.   Child poverty and the Intergenerational Perpetuation of Poverty (IGPP) are now being compounded by the impact of climate change.   Around one third of the world’s child population is living with the dual impacts of poverty and high climate risk. With the devastating effects of extreme weather destroying livelihoods and communities and leading to mass migration, more and more children are at risk.   The current spate of heatwaves, megafires, deadly floods and landslides in many countries across the world is bringing the reality of the climate crisis to the doors of more and more children.   It is no longer just a remote disaster that has been destroying lives and communities in many parts of the developing world and trapped them in poverty and a struggle for survival. It is now an existential threat to the future wellbeing of children in all countries, developed and developing.   The challenges posed by the climate crisis, the persistence of child poverty and the Intergenerational Perpetuation of Poverty, are inextricably bound together and to tackle one we must tackle the others.   They share a common origin: an economic system based on excessive consumption by some when others lack access to essential goods and services and cannot meet their basic needs, and the deeply unsustainable use of natural resources. Positive social change that will transform our societies and build an inclusive economy is vital to addressing these three challenges.   One of the keys to such a transformation and to building a sustainable future will be to tackle inequality and ensure real equality of opportunity for all. Above all, this will require intensifying action to end child poverty as this is essential to creating equality of opportunity for all and ending the Intergenerational Perpetuation of Poverty.   If we are to end child poverty and the Intergenerational Perpetuation of Poverty we must start by asking ourselves why in a world of plenty there is a collective failure to eradicate poverty. We believe this is because we only rarely move beyond the symptoms to address the root causes, particularly in early childhood, of the Intergenerational Perpetuation of Poverty; because of the efforts of governments being obstructed, in particular as a result of mistaken beliefs concerning ‘merit’ and ‘incentives’; because of the self-interest of and exploitation by some who control excessive wealth and resources; and because of a failure to properly assess the costs to society of poverty and inequalities.   For instance, the current failure to eradicate poverty imposes a huge cost on society. In a country such as the United States, child poverty costs over US$1 trillion annually, representing 5.4 per cent of its gross domestic product, taking into account the loss of economic productivity, greater health and crime expenses, and increased costs as a result of child homelessness and maltreatment.   Investing in children, conversely, has considerable returns: for every dollar spent on reducing childhood poverty, seven dollars would be spared.   To break the vicious cycles that lead to IGPP and persistent child poverty, we should move beyond a reliance on the classic approach to poverty reduction based on economic growth combined with progressive taxation and social protection.   We need to both strengthen our post-market redistribution mechanisms and put more emphasis on the pre-market mechanisms that cause social exclusion. This means building an inclusive economy: one that prevents exclusion rather than causing exclusion and compensating it post hoc.   In strengthening our post-market redistribution mechanisms, three priorities will be vital.   First, mobilising increased resources to combat poverty by widening the tax base and implementing progressive tax policies. Second, strengthening social protection and protecting basic income security. Third, ensuring effective access for children to food, housing, sport, culture and leisure activities, childcare, education, healthcare and other key services.   What we need is a move from an extractive and exclusive economy to a regenerative and inclusive one. In particular, we believe that this will involve three things: i) advancing a jobs-rich model of development which makes the right to work a reality; ii) introducing a basic income for young adults; and iii) prohibiting discrimination on grounds of socioeconomic disadvantage.   Of course, the scale of economic, social and environmental changes required, essential though they are for all our futures, will not be easily achieved.   We must place the goal of ending child poverty and Intergenerational Perpetuation of Poverty at the heart of our economic and political systems and thus embed it in all our economic, social and environmental policies as well as in the systems for delivering them.   There is no excuse for the perpetuation of the vicious cycles that diminish life chances of children in poverty: we know the range of policies and actions that are needed to break them. Thus, given the damage that poverty does to people’s lives, to social cohesion, to the economy and to environmental sustainability, we can imagine no objective more urgent or worthwhile pursuing.   * Olivier De Schutter is the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights and Professor at UCLouvain, Belgium and SciencesPo, France. Hugh Frazer is Adjunct Professor at Maynooth University, Ireland, a former Director of the Irish Government’s Combat Poverty Agency and an expert on European Union (EU) social policy and child poverty.   Anne-Catherine Guio is Senior Researcher at the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER) and ensured the scientific coordination of the first two EU’s Feasibility Studies for a ‘European Child Guarantee’. Eric Marlier is International Scientific Coordinator at LISER and manages the 38-country ‘European Social Policy Analysis Network’ funded by the EU.   http://www.transformingsociety.co.uk/2023/10/16/ending-child-poverty-is-vital-for-a-sustainable-future/   Feb. 2024   Globally, 1.4 billion children aged 0-15 lack any form of social protection, leaving them vulnerable to disease, poor nutrition and poverty, according to new data released today by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Save the Children and UNICEF.   In low-income countries, less than one in ten children in this age group have access to child benefits, highlighting a significant disparity compared to the coverage enjoyed by children in high-income countries.   Child benefits are a critical form of social protection, intended to promote the long-term wellbeing of children. Paid in cash or tax credits, child benefits are essential for reducing poverty, as well as accessing healthcare, nutrition, quality education and water and sanitation. Additionally, these benefits support socio-economic development, particularly in times of crisis.   In such contexts, many children are deprived of the basic resources and services they need to escape poverty, and are therefore exposed to the long-lasting impacts of hunger, malnutrition, and unrealised potential.   The three organisations are calling on governments to ensure all children are shielded by social protection mechanisms, including through universal child benefits.   The data shows there has been a modest global increase in access to child benefits over a period of 14 years, from 20% in 2009 to 28.1% in 2023. However, the progress has been unequal. In low-income countries, rates of coverage remain staggeringly low, at around 9%. At the same time, 84.6% of children in high-income countries are covered.   Coverage rates for children in countries that are highly vulnerable to climate impacts are a third lower than those in countries that are not classified as being at high risk. Ensuring children are covered by social protection is key to protecting them from the worst impacts of the climate crisis.   "Globally, there are 333 million children living in extreme poverty, struggling to survive on less than US$2.15 per day, and nearly 1 billion children living in multidimensional poverty. At the current rate of progress, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals' poverty targets are out of reach. This is unacceptable. However, ending child poverty is a policy choice. Expanding social protection coverage of children in the fight against poverty is critical, including the progressive realisation of universal child benefits," said Natalia Winder Rossi, Director, Social Policy and Social Protection, UNICEF.   "This is a crisis for the over one billion children who are not covered by benefits, and for the countries in which they live. There is an urgent need for effective policymaking to help us close protection gaps. Regional inequalities in coverage and progress are of serious concern -- improvement in child benefit coverage is marginal in most regions and too many children are still being left behind." said Shahra Razavi, Director of the Social Protection Department at the ILO.   To bolster efforts to monitor child benefit coverage, Save the Children, ILO and UNICEF have developed the Global Child Benefits Tracker, an online platform to monitor children's access to benefits, and advocate with governments and donors to close the gaps. This launch comes at a critical time when most recent data shows that 829 million children globally are living in households with per-person incomes below US$3.65 a day and progress on child poverty reduction has largely stalled.   "Child benefits support families to afford better nourishment, health, education, and protection and are key for realising children's rights and enhancing their potential as adults. Child benefits are therefore critical to building inclusive and resilient economies for the future. Unfortunately, many countries have not prioritised investment in social protection. Through the Child Benefits Tracker, we highlight the scale of global child poverty and examples of progress to inspire greater political will and investment in child-sensitive social protection systems," said David Lambert Tumwesigye, Global Policy & Advocacy Lead for Child Poverty at Save the Children International.   The three agencies urge policymakers and donors to take decisive steps to attain universal social protection for all children, by:   Building social protection systems that are rights-based, gender-responsive, inclusive, and shock-responsive to address inequities and deliver better results for girls and women, children with disabilities, migrant children, and children in child labour for example.   Closing protection gaps require filling the 'financing gap'. This means investing in child benefits for all children offers a proven and cost-effective way to combat child poverty and ensure children thrive. Providing a comprehensive range of child benefits through national social protection systems that also connect families to crucial health and social services, such as free or affordable high-quality childcare.   Securing sustainable financing for social protection systems by mobilising domestic resources and increasing public investment in children. Strengthening social protection for parents and caregivers by guaranteeing access to decent work and adequate benefits, including unemployment, sickness, maternity, disability, and pensions.   http://www.savethechildren.net/news/14-billion-children-globally-missing-out-basic-social-protection-according-latest-data http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/14-billion-children-globally-missing-out-basic-social-protection-according-latest http://www.childbenefitstracker.org/ http://www.endchildhoodpoverty.org/news-and-updates-1/breaking-the-cycle http://www.endchildhoodpoverty.org/news-and-updates-1/mpi2024 Visit the related web page
	View more stories