Hacker News Reader

Comment by bombcar | Hacker News Reader

That second part is a seriously hard problem to deal with because we got rid of institutionalization except in some (very expensive and rare) situations. So we're effectively requiring the prison system to handle things, and only when it becomes too much of a big problem.

I suspect we need something like actual government-owned and managed slums - basically jails you can leave at any time. It would be much worse than "normal housing" but it has to be better than a tent under a bridge.

View on HN

We got rid of institutionalization for very good reason. Many of them outright abused the people under their care. Cleaning up the system is hard. Many of the homeless have mental issues such that they cannot figure out how to report abuse even if it would be listened to, and of course institutions have easy means to ensure you can't report things. (or you can report, but the person doing the abuse investigates and finds nothing wrong)

It was a combination of abuses at psychiatric facilities and the belief that new drugs would "solve" mental health issues.

We had problems with abuse in many institutions (schools, churches, nursing homes) but we didn't get rid of all those.

It would cost, but you can externally monitor and correct institutions if you have entirely separate people doing it.

Or - livestream everything and let the public monitor it. (Obviously this can't be done for various reasons, but we now have the technology to literally record it all.)

The other argument is that it seems fundamentally wrong to incarcerate someone against their will who isn't a danger to society.

Correct, but screaming at people on the street is a being danger to society. And the choice is: should that person be prison or mandatory treatment?

What if they just shuffle along mumbling to themselves, like 99% of them?

Everyone deserves safe housing, living among raving maniacs is not safe, ergo we need to house dangerous people like that separately. Ideally in a way that helps them the most.

Shuffling mumblers are not dangerous.

Right, which means it seems wrong to incarcerate them in a mental facility against their will. I'm assuming very few would willingly be incarcerated.

Maybe there's a way to house them in some kind of voluntary mental facility only for non-dangerous mentally ill people. They can come and go during the day. But at least they have a roof over their heads, someone to look after them, provide clean clothes, etc.

Feels like someone must have already tried this and none of the mentally ill homeless were interested.

I think we basically agree.

My position is: if you're a danger to yourself and society you should be coerced into receiving treatment (either in a prison or mental institution) if you are not you should receive housing and non-coercive treatment options through a publicly funded healthcare system.

This seems weirdly controversial though. Seems like people vehemently opposed one or the other half of the solution and we get the terrible situation we have now.

Implying that if you don't want to live in rule based housing you should be institutionalized ?

This is the root of the question - should someone of sound mind and body be prohibited from sleeping rough?

If the alternative is you're causing problems for the public like creating unsanitary and unsafe conditions, then yes. If you don't do those things like the invisible homeless, then no of course not. Which isn't to say there shouldn't be help for those homeless people getting back to having a home, but that's a different matter. If you really prefer being a vagrant, don't trash or block public places and nobody will care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com