Can helping homeless hurt them?
Here's an article in the Chron regarding attorneys helping fight homeless citations.
Essential premise: had attorneys not fought a particular homeless man's citations, he would not have died by OD'ing in the city's public library.
Do well-intentioned lawyers actually end up doing more harm than good?
It's a particularly relevant question for us to ask as (1) we have a ton of homeless in Berkeley; and (2) we've got a number of students and professors who volunteer in this way.
-----
EDIT: I'm not sure if people really got the purpose of this post - I guess I kind of threw it out there without a position. I was lazy and was seriously expecting some clear and prompt disagreement. I had even sent it to some friends I expected would be best at refuting him, as I didn't agree with his rather ridiculous column, and they would be best at putting him in his place.
The one thing I can say is that I didn't expect people to so readily agree with the author. Wow. People say I'm conservative, but I'm not CRAZY (I'm not all that conservative either). Mental health and homelessness are serious problems that require solutions beyond the author's suggestion that the legal system could handle it. And it's offensive to say that the people trying their best to correct the system are, in fact, to blame for making it worse.
For future reference: if I throw out an article/column without more than a "what do you think" - do NOT assume that I agree with the author. I'm trying to spark an intelligent debate in an open (yet anonymous for y'all) forum. Often the columns/articles that I disagree with most will be ones that I'll rely on my anonymous commenting friends to refute.
Essential premise: had attorneys not fought a particular homeless man's citations, he would not have died by OD'ing in the city's public library.
Do well-intentioned lawyers actually end up doing more harm than good?
It's a particularly relevant question for us to ask as (1) we have a ton of homeless in Berkeley; and (2) we've got a number of students and professors who volunteer in this way.
-----
EDIT: I'm not sure if people really got the purpose of this post - I guess I kind of threw it out there without a position. I was lazy and was seriously expecting some clear and prompt disagreement. I had even sent it to some friends I expected would be best at refuting him, as I didn't agree with his rather ridiculous column, and they would be best at putting him in his place.
The one thing I can say is that I didn't expect people to so readily agree with the author. Wow. People say I'm conservative, but I'm not CRAZY (I'm not all that conservative either). Mental health and homelessness are serious problems that require solutions beyond the author's suggestion that the legal system could handle it. And it's offensive to say that the people trying their best to correct the system are, in fact, to blame for making it worse.
For future reference: if I throw out an article/column without more than a "what do you think" - do NOT assume that I agree with the author. I'm trying to spark an intelligent debate in an open (yet anonymous for y'all) forum. Often the columns/articles that I disagree with most will be ones that I'll rely on my anonymous commenting friends to refute.
Labels: The Others
posted by tj at 5:22 PM
9 Comments:
And had they not fought his citations......he might have OD'd in the library with a bunch of outstanding citations.
The article is premised on the assumption that had he been processed by the system, he would have received some intervening treatment. I don't know if that's true, but keeping him out of the system didn't lead to any treatment.
I say let the homeless get cited--perhaps it forces the system to deal with them and leads to some chance of treatment.
(And one more thing...What's the harm in getting cited? If it's a civil fine, then no harm can befall someone impecunious. If it's jail time...well, I think incarceration is better than living on the street...he can get a hot meal and a chance at some meds.)
From the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights
-----------------------------------
*Contrary to the article by Chuck Nevius, treatment was never offered
through the court system to James Hill. There is a severe lack of
substance abuse treatment in San Francisco. There are hundreds waiting for treatment every day. The City is proposing cutting that treatment and community based mental health treatment again this year by 15%.
*San Franciscans are deeply concerned with human dignity. The lack of safe and affordable housing will not be solved by making people without homes into criminals.
*Every person should have equal access to legal representation,
particularly where there are criminal consequences. Due process is a basic constitutional right.
*For homeless people, legal representation is particularly important. Infraction charges related to a person's homeless status (sleeping, sitting, drinking) go to warrant when homeless people do not have the
money to pay fines, or cannot find legal representation. Those warrants perpetuate a permanent cycle of homelessness. People with misdemeanor warrants cannot get into public housing, their social security benefits are cut off, and they cannot get employment - the very things homeless people need to get off the street.
*The criminal justice system has not, and will not, solve homelessness. If no lawyer had ever stepped forward to represent James Hill, he would be just as dead today, from just as fatal an overdose, following an endless cycle of jail, release, re-offense, and NO TREATMENT. Lawyers are not resisting access to treatment. Nevius doesn't he touch on the
fact that the City has promised treatment options, repeatedly, and then broken the promise every time, by providing only scattered, completely inadequate resources. What Nevius doesn't report is that there was no place to refer James Hill. That there was no service option available. The best Mr. Hill could have gotten was a handout with the phone numbers of the full treatment programs. (Thanks to Bob Borton of Heller Ehrman for providing this analysis.)
*San Francisco does not provide enough resources for homeless people - in particular, there is a lack of clean, safe, permanent housing. The roots of this problem lie in the abandonment by the federal government of low-cost housing two decades ago, which has never been restored.
Maybe I should have entitled this post something like:
"Why Is The City of San Francisco Trying to Blame its Homelessness Problem on Public Interest Lawyers?"
what the hell is going on here?
not this post.
THIS post.
The analysis provided by 1:07 is beyond dumb. Just because we've chosen to call these people "homeless" does not mean this is a housing problem! Nor is it an employment problem. Such a notion is laughable. What do you propose? That we help these people polish their resumes?
"Homelessness" is a serious mental health issue. The "cycle of homelessness" that 1:07 refers to is not caused by ineligibility to get into public housing because of outstanding warrants.
I think it's time that some of these self-styled "homeless advocates" stop living in fantasy and see this problem for what it is. If you want to help the homeless, then you need to go the state capitol and start demanding that we provide in-patient treatment centers with involuntary commitments.
Hey TJ, why didn't you invite me to your potluck?
it hurts man, hurts...
maybe this belongs on the grammar thread... but here's my pet peeve: *article* and *column* are completely different things.
Oh McWho. You know the strong bond between you and I necessitates a more intimate setting than a 10 person dinner in a tiny apartment.
Post a Comment
<< Home