Only about 15% of homeless in Seattle are "visible". Roughly 50% are sheltered, and of the unsheltered many live in vehicle [0] (though the numbers in this article don't quite add up).
I fully agree with you though, a lot of people's frustration with the homeless comes from a vocal minority of problematic unsheltered people with serious mental health issues and/or addiction problems. If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off.
More to the point, a criminal minority. It's mostly lawbreaking that makes this minority visible: assault, robbery, theft, dumping waste, etc.
> If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off.
I agree and in particular, even the invisible majority. Talk to anyone who knows anything about the homeless problem and they'll tell you that homeless people are very frequently victims of crimes themselves. They don't have the shelter or resources to protect themselves, so they are easy picking for criminals.
So getting this small number of actively harmful homeless people off the street — remediating them or not — will help improve the quality of life and safety of an even larger number of other homeless people.
This has been done before and has a very dark history. Deeming someone criminal and in need of remediation has been an integral part of some very grim historical events.
I’m pretty sure I know what you’re arguing for, but how does one avoid it becoming a system whereby undesirables are vanished? Is there somewhere that has a humane and fair system?
It's not a "grim historical event" to observe when people commit crimes and then throw them in prison for the specific crimes they have committed after a fair trial. That's approximately what would happen if you or I went around brazenly violating the law.
I think one aspect of this that is worthy of concern is institutionalization. A lot of our problems these days are a consequence of deinstitutionalization, but prior to deinstitutionalization there were a lot of hidden abusive practices in the institutions themselves. I'm not sure where exactly the pendulum should come to rest on that issue.
There's also the consequences of putting violent or unstable homeless people in with the general prison population. Which is what pushed them into mental facilities in the first place, who had people better trained to deal with mental illness.
Both of those solutions have downsides and as the NPR story mentioned a lot of those mental health institutions were shut down in the 1980s.
Having beat cops and other locals or street people deal with the problem is also non ideal.
So its going to be lessers of evils and attempting to minimize the evil as much as possible.
What kind of crime though? I think that's a part of it as well. Possession of a little bit of heroin? Camping somewhere not allowed to do so? Trespassing?
I feel like the alternate proposal just says, don't put them in jail for small amounts of time after every small crime, instead preemptively give them a permanent home to stay out of trouble from. In a way, it's a kind of jail, but one where you hope they stay in forever, and go to even before any crime is committed. Would the cost of that be any more then the cost that is currently going to the jail system?
Keep in mind I think the assumption here is that when it comes to mental illness or drug addiction, jail does not work as a deterrent, because the illness or addiction will cause repeat offense no matter the consequence to them. It assumes they can't help themselves but eventually commit a crime again. That's part of the challenge.
it's a 'grim historical event' because America's history of law enforcement has been very much in favor of detaining and criminalizing minorities. One needs to only look at Marijuana statistics to see why.
The problem Seattle is running up against is that they're trying to solve what is effectively a national problem at a local level and failing. The way to solve the issues with the homeless and mentally ill is by having stronger safety nets and healthcare, but that's a longer term solution when people really just want them out of sight, which means tossing them in jail.
Where they come out on the streets and keep doing the exact same thing they were locked up for. Because our criminal justice system doesn't do anything for reform or reducing recidivism.
It’s a national problem that becomes a local problem to the localities that are the most accommodating. At the moment that includes Seattle. People show up here because they get repeatedly arrested in other places, where their solution to the problem is giving away bus tickets to places like Seattle.
> how does one avoid it becoming a system whereby undesirables are vanished?
I think the simple answer is to limit to people who have actually demonstrably committed crimes, which is exactly what this article is about.
I'm not suggesting that someone talking themselves on a street corner should be locked up forever. I'm saying that if you've got someone who already has a record assaulting people, you put that person in jail. Even if it's not to their benefit, it is a benefit to their would-be future victims.
Of course, ideally, we'll remediate them too using the mental health facilities (which need more funding and better laws). I'm not saying I prefer using prison. But it's better than letting known violent people hurt others people.
A wild tiger is not an evil animal that deserves to be locked up. It's done nothing wrong and as an animal is not legally considered responsibile for its actions. But that doesn't mean you'd just let one roam the streets even after it's mauled a couple of people.
Which obviously would never veer into "there was some crime .. it probably was this guy over there" "We have no real proof" "Yeah, but who needs that? Let's spin a few tales for the jury/judge, his look does the rest of the job." .. never happened before, won't happen this time.
If your policy is prone to abuse you better have a few ideas how to make sure this abuse won't happen. People don't want homeless people in their vicinity, so the abuse of any such system without extreme high safeguards is more or less guaranteed. And if you install safeguards you are back at square one: Someone will slip through, bad things happens, articles get written, people cry that safeguards should be lowered .. and so on, and so on. It's not an easy problem. Even if you agree that the basic idea is good.
I think I see your point but the slippery slope goes both ways.
Right now a certain class of criminals operate with impunity in Seattle. Our laws are not perfect and I even acknowledge the bias in drug prosecution but the solution to those problems is changing the laws, not ignoring them.
Contrary to popular belief we do in fact have a functional judiciary and legislature in this country.
I fully agree with you though, a lot of people's frustration with the homeless comes from a vocal minority of problematic unsheltered people with serious mental health issues and/or addiction problems. If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off.
[0] https://mynorthwest.com/1402025/homeless-seattle-king-county...?