bahua wrote:I do agree that the panhandling has to stop, but that's just a symptom of a greater problem(poverty) that the city sees as incurable. Prosperity will fix the area better than any "crackdown."
I agree that the problem must be dealt with. One of the more unpleasant aspects of going to the downtown library is the homeless people that congregate there. One feels nervous entering the place at times.
However, I don't think prosperity is going to solve the homeless problem. Why? Because a large portion of the homeless population have mental health or substance abuse problems. Putting them in a shelter or jail won't solve that problem. Jails don't provide substance abuse or mental health treatment. When the inmates are released back into the public, they have the same problems as they did going in. There is also the problem of the jail population algorithm--when the jail population reaches a certain number, they have to let some of them out.
Many homeless with substance abuse or mental problems are not in the position or frame of mind to help themselves. In addition, they can't be forced into treatment without their consent. When they panhandle, arresting them and sending them to jail is not a punishment. At least there they are warm, clean, have a bed, and have something free to eat for a few days. It is not a deterrent.
The only way to truly solve the homeless problem is to provide treatment for mental illness and substance abuse. Civil libertarians also say that having drug problems or being mentally ill is not a crime, and that people in the US are free to be homeless if they want.
However, I disagree with this argument. In many ways, people with these problems are not able to make good judgements about their well-being. Mental illness and drug addiction limits one's ability to care for oneself, and make good choices. We don't let people with Alzheimer's freely wander the streets and sleep under freeway bridges. Just because people refuse help doesn't mean they don't need it. Schizophrenics sometimes refuse to take their medication. However, those who do refuse, and commit crimes as a result, can be forced into drug testing by a court order.
People cannot be forced into treatment until they are a danger to themselves or others. As we have seen recently, a couple of homeless people froze to death from sleeping on the streets. That appears to me to be a dangerous choice.
These "ill" homeless are much different that homeless who have lost a job or been evicted. Unemployed homeless can at least get day work at employment agencies, and have some hope of lifting themselves back up from homelessness.
I don't think we do any kindness to mentally ill and substance abusing homeless by letting them wander freely about. They are less capable of returning to society on their own, and we are essentially enabling them to continue to be homeless by not helping them.
On the topic of mentally ill homeless especially, we would not let small children live outdoors and wander about freely. Well, many mentally-ill people are not competent any more than a child would be, yet we let them be homeless. This problem stems from the deinstitutionalization of the mentally-ill in the 1970s. I'm not saying that mental hospitals were the most ideal place for anyone, but it was just irresponsible to release people into society whom were not capable of caring for themselves. There are a lot of people in nursing homes who don't want to be there either, but they must because of infirmity or illness.
I've always thought that people who use the civil liberties argument to defend homelessness of substance abusers or the mentally-ill are people who are unwilling to deal with the problem. I'm not saying that homelessness is a crime; I'm just saying that people with impaired judgement and no place to live are not competent to make sound choices--and are likely to resort to criminal activity as a result. If they don't bother anyone. Fine. But if they commit crime, and their condition is believed to be the cause of their crime, then they should forfeit their ability to consent to treatment or not. A good example of this that society already uses is the situation of repeat drunk drivers losing their driver's license. Society doesn't allow people with alcohol problems to operate motor vehicles legally.
As in all situations, there will be exceptions to my argument. That is why a judge or jury should make the decision after hearing arguments for and against.
One way of dealing with panhandling by people claiming to be hungry--but whom are really attempting to get money for drugs and alcohol--is to have police direct them to soup kitchens run by charities, or give them a small voucher to buy food only (like food stamps). The first time police catch them panhandling, this is done. Then, everytime after that, they are arrested and put into the rehab. system after a judge or jury determines their status. If an individual repeatly returns to the same area to panhandle, a restraining order is written for a particular area. Then, if they return there within 180 days without court or police approval (like if they need to visit a clinic or government office in the area), they are arrested and sent back into the system again.
If any of my ideas are ill-conceived, I'm open to hearing about other alternatives that will better deal with the specific situation of the mentally ill and substance abusing homeless. I'm just thinking out loud.
There is no fifth destination.
ha