Being mentally ill is not a crime. Involuntary commitment brings up important civil liberties issues, particularly as it pertains to what the standard is that is being used and who makes those decisions.
I’m referring to the underlying societal critique of the movie about mental heath, veterans, and how America turned its back on that generation. All of those things link back to how we normalize war as “no big deal” and how the psychological impact and PTSD were ignored. Homeless population has a high percentage of veterans.
There should be a process to institutionalize drug users who are habitual criminals. But why would it be “jail” if jail isn’t effective? Maybe in extreme cases they just can’t get clean, so then lock those people up in a rehab type facility for longer term. But if you are locking people up beyond their actual criminal sentences, it needs to be ALOT more humane than jails. This country has a poor history with funding facilities in the past (understatement), which is why the U.S. deinstitutionalized them in the 1st place - because of all the horrors and cruelty that went on in underfunded facilities.
I said jailed if all other options are refused. And of course there would need to be a criminal offense. Not so much on jailing mentally ill but something has to happen. Leaving these people out to just eventually die is inhumane.
The SCOTUS made a ruling on this about a year ago that gives localities the ability to arrest homeless people if they sleeping outside even if there is not shelter available. Previously the 9th Circuit said that was unconstitutional due to being cruel and unusual. So this gives some cities more options when it comes to dealing with homeless encampments moving forward. https://www.npr.org/2024/06/28/nx-s1-4992010/supreme-court-homeless-punish-sleeping-encampments
So hard to figure out when is it ok for a state to violate your rights "for your own good". Such a slippery slope but drug addiction is devastating.
Trust me. I’ve seen my daughter in the worst of situations and I’ve seen my intellectually disabled son arrested for no good reason. I don’t say these things lightly. I’m am not advocating for violation of rights - there needs to be a process, and doing drugs and living in a tent seemingly is a violation of some law.
I don’t understand what you mean by “refused”? People generally don’t get to refuse jail sentences if convicted of a crime! Maybe in some cases addicts who commit minor crimes (thefts) are given the option of rehab or jail? Do some choose jail? Maybe by default, if they fail or sneak away from court prescribed rehab… if that’s what you mean. I think that’s a somewhat diffferent issue from long term institutionalization or attempts to “get people off the streets”, which sort of implies you aren’t actually convicting them of crimes but instead are criminalizing their homelessness.
I guess what I am saying - is there should be laws, and a process - such that if you are doing illegal drugs, and living in a tent in an unauthorized place - that should be a crime, and the remedy should be a whole list of options other than jail, and if successfully followed through criminal charges are dropped. If not, then jail, and if when addicting willing rinse and repeat the above options. With mentally ill they should be detained - and there needs to be a process - stay at a mental health center (which I understand from experience is near useless), engagement of local mental health resources, trying to find housing options if competent, jobs and treatment. Perhaps temporary or permanent guardianship. If the person refuses and goes back in the street and is disruptive then involuntary commitment.
Its crazy the amount whiplash there is on this. We tried criminalization, and people went the other way because mass incarceration isnt sustainable, but they couldnt handle the harm reduction approach where you just try to contain drug users and make sure they have clean needles and stuff. Couldnt handle seeing homeless encampments on the way to brunch and such. Now we are full circle back with people thinking we need a CECOT for the homeless and mentally ill. Because it seems no one politically has the stomach to take these problems head on when it comes to housing and healthcare guarantees. When all else fails in America, we can only imagine locking people up.
Well Bill actually got something right for once in post #9. At least insofar as identifying the problem. I have no issue with the govt trying to do something in good faith about the habitual homeless. The problem is the solution and whether there is “good faith”. Bill identified 3 different groups of people. One that requires drug intervention. Another that requires mental health intervention. Some extreme cases in both categories maybe are “lifers” and need permanent institutionalization. But who adjudicates that? Finally there is that category that fell on “hard times”. So this final group of people basically just need… a cash handout or temporary roof over their head. The problem is very few on the right side of the isle are going to spend the $$$ or even make this distinction that Bill did.. So either you get attempts to just straight up criminalize homelessness itself (making it minor crime just to empower police to do sweeps), or you get something far more sinister (just sending them out of sight out of mind with little due process).
Yeah I understand. The problem with leaving these people to themselves in public is they are a danger to themselves and others. While I can’t say I’m an expert my sense is that in terms of people on the street or in camps the “down on their luck” types are probably a minority. Realistically those types will probably live in their car or with a friend or relative.
This is probably true. Just common sense, if a person is recently homeless they’d want to stay away from junkies. There was some crazy stat about 50% of homeless being “working homeless”. I too suspect many of those would be living in cars, at least if they were evicted out of a suburban home or apartment - a higher % might at least still have a car. But in urban areas not everyone owns a car, so an evicted person pretty much would be put straight out on the streets.
This is the opposite of what people who work with them say though ... every shelter I've ever volunteered at has said most of the people that come through are unhoused for a matter of weeks or months at the longest. The people that are long term have no support system at all, or have exhausted whatever informal support they've had (or are getting out of bad domestic situations). A lot of people in camps have jobs and employment, but affordable housing is still out of reach in the short term. The long-termers are more difficult to reintegrate (and many are not able to work for various reasons, whether its age, disability, etc), but they are also a small minority. I think it goes without saying the longer you are on the streets, the more mentally destabilized you become as you are further isolated from society. We really need to be better at keeping people off the streets with housing & healthcare policies, prevent people from slipping through the cracks.
That's the first step... sorting though which one falls into which group, then start working the problem. But we need to take that first step, we need to give these people some normalcy back into their lives.
Being in a shelter is different than being on the street. Sure I can see that more down on luck types are at shelters. Many shelters don’t allow addicts or drugs, and understandably so. Ultimately I don’t know. My opinions are based on some articles I’ve read on the subject, anecdotal observations of people my daughter has been around and the little bit I see of homeless on the street. Certainly not a definitive opinion.
There is a place in this for religious groups to more efficiently use their tax exempt contributions to solve the problem than inefficient government. Am I doing this right Cons?
