So much of the problem in SF comes down to the progressive politician types who only want to things that "impact the root causes of crime" and its extremely frustrating and frequently just plain wrong. Yes, you do not solve the "root problem of why people choose to commit crime" by putting repeat offenders in jail, but you do make the world way better for everyone else who is not a criminal. Poor people, immigrants, the downtrodden all disproportionately benefit from tough on crime policies because they are the people for whom have the least resources to isolate themselves from the chaos and antisocial behaviors of the worst among us. Its not a white kids in the marina that need to walk past piles of shit and needles to get to school, its the poor immigrant kids in the tenderloin who need to deal with this.
> So much of the problem in SF comes down to the progressive politician types who only want to things that "impact the root causes of crime" and its extremely frustrating and frequently just plain wrong.
It's getting bad in LA as well. I've lived in Westwood (UCLA) and now Santa Monica since I went to school here around 2012. You'd always see homeless people every now and then, but they were mostly isolated to encampments and the "bad areas." Not anymore. I walk around a lot and work in coffee shops and hotel lobbies, and in the past year, I've witnessed people shooting up literally next to a kid's playground, I've been offered meth in the middle of the street (at like 10am in the morning, mind you), I hear people screaming/yelling at the top of their lungs outside of my apartment at midnight, had to dodge human poop in the middle of a sidewalk, a homeless person used my garage (the door was stuck open for a few weeks until someone came out to fix it) as a drug den, etc.
I'm literally considering running for city council to try to fix this. We changed the city government a few years ago, but it's gotten worse, not better. It's honestly insane. I have a few friends that just had babies and I have no idea how you could raise a child in a city like this. When I get married/have kids, I'm not sure I would stay here.
Are we talking Arizona St. or Santa Monica Blvd or Sotel or west of the 405 here? Because Santa Monica Blvd. has been pretty bad for decades. That Starbucks/parklet area at Santa Monica and Bundy has been the worst for a long while.
I think there's probably some middle ground between "throw all homeless people in jail" and "tolerate homeless people doing meth next to an elementary school."
There appears to be a belief that 'poor people' are hopeless maniacs that lack all self-control. It's a disparaging mindset that lures in and compounds addictive behavior. How many full lives aren't lived due to egotistic fallacies?
People like to blame the politicians for what’s happening. However the politicians are not electing themselves.
The problem is the people who with great intentions make things worse. Wait a few minutes until someone posts that “statistically it doesn’t happen and you are wrong”.
What you mean is social policy is mostly an excuse for expanding government, and government control. And "helping with root causes" always means expanding government departments, rather than, for example, dealing with housing shortages.
Eliminating the root causes of crime is a noble goal. Of course you can treat both the root cause and the symptoms, but if you want to get at the root cause, you have to know what the root cause is.
Of course nothing complex has a single root cause. The main one I'm seeing though is extremely addictive drugs, specifically Meth and Fentanyl. A certain percentage of people, if they try these drugs, will become hopelessly addicted until they are living on the street stealing to buy more drugs. SF seems unwilling to do anything to disrupt this cycle.
So I believe we put too many people in jail for too long. I think our justice system is pretty broken. Having said that, to fix it I never thought of just letting people commit crimes like areas in California seem to be doing. That's just as asinine but in the other direction.
I always imagined giving people much lighter sentences for most things and if they repeat, then give them harsher and harsher sentences. Only the worst repeat offenders would get what they get today. I imagined not overcharging people hoping to scare someone into a plea. I imagined police not being able to interrogate and lie to children without a parent present. I imagined getting rid of pre textual stops to get innocent people's id's. I imagined "I smell marijuana," as not allowable probable cause. I imagined removing most K9 units. I imagined removing most SWAT units except for the largest cities. I imagined being able to remove bad police, bad prosecutors and bad judges from their positions of power. I never imagined letting people commit crimes with no fear of any repercussions.
The guy who hit the marina person on the head with a pipe was considered a "frequent flyer" by the SF police. They have tons (like 20+) of complaints against this person and the group they live with for various things like drug use, menacing behavior, starting fights, stealing, etc. A few businesses on the street have restraining orders on this person preventing them from entering for example the walgreens. A large issue we have with our criminal justice system in CA/SF right now is that "low level" non felony crimes (like theft of less than 950 dollars, public drug use, pooping in the street, menacing others), are treated more or less like an administrative issue and the criminal might be fined, but they won't be jailed, and there isn't an escalation policy where more and more low level crimes result in an escalation of consequences. This means that people can repeatedly perform extremely anti social behaviors (street shitting, public meth smoking, stealing 200 dollars of whatever from a store, threatening people and screaming) over and over and over again without an escalation of consequences for their actions. There is an escalation policy for things like murder or other felony crimes, but these escalations usually take a long time, and the end result is the repeat offenders do kill or cause serious harm before they are put in prison and taken out of society.
> So I believe we put too many people in jail for too long. I think our justice system is pretty broken. Having said that, to fix it I never thought of just letting people commit crimes like areas in California seem to be doing. That's just as asinine but in the other direction.
> I never imagined letting people commit crimes with no fear of any repercussions.
This is a myth. Police everywhere prioritize violent crimes. Jails and prisons everywhere prioritize retaining violent criminals and when they have to, attempt to release the lowest risk offenders. When people have been prematurely released from jail it is not out of misplaced compassion. Mostly people are being released because the system is already at capacity. In fact many jails in the U.S. are well above capacity before they decide to release people. Some as much as 150%
No matter where you are, a lot of violent crime goes un-solved. That has been true for decades. People cover up their crimes and many are reasonably good at it.
The rise in crime during and following the pandemic has been significant for small, medium and large cities regardless of the policies adopted by those cities and regardless of the overriding politics of the state they are situated in.
How much prison time does a person "deserve" for publicly injecting themselves with a chemical? How many more jails or prisons should we build to hold them? How much prison time do they "deserve" for doing it again? What percentage of the unhoused population should we continuously churn through the system? For the criminal justice system to contain this, I suspect you would have to create a large internment system which would something like double the size of U.S. incarceration.
As I see it, the system is not failing for a lack of cruelty. But because there is a sizable population who have nothing left to lose.
> How much prison time does a person "deserve" for publicly injecting themselves with a chemical?
Long enough that they stop doing it.
> How many more jails or prisons should we build to hold them?
When the alternative is people literally filling public sidewalks with feces, as many as we need to hold them.
> How much prison time do they "deserve" for doing it again?
Exponential back off from society would be nice.
> What percentage of the unhoused population should we continuously churn through the system?
It’s not being homeless that leads one to defecating on the street. It’s mental issues and drug addiction.
The homeless who want to live better lives have plenty of opportunity. It’s the fringe class that wants live on the street, rolling from high to high, that are the problem.
> For the criminal justice system to contain this, I suspect you would have to create a large internment system which would something like double the size of U.S. incarceration.
Probably something on that order. Likely a bit less as it’s about 10K homeless in SF and 125K total incarcerated in CA. Even stretching it state wide it wouldn’t double.
Cost wise it would definitely go up, but it’d be distributed across the entire State rather than just the local crime, quality of life, and property value hit that is experienced by the law abiding people in the affected areas. So that seems like a net win.
While I deeply disagree with you and I recoil at the idea of a system under which a person might spend literal years in prison for taking a shit where they "shouldn't", I respect your honesty. Usually when I pose these kind of questions people lie about their true expectations because they wish for such harsh measures in secret but rather not be associated with them.
> literal years in prison for taking a shit where they "shouldn't"
No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying. Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context.
And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced.
> such harsh measures in secret
Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures? Some people try to raise children without rules and they always do more harm than good. Especially trying to avoid such simple rules about reasonable boundaries.
> No, and you know that's not what anyone is saying.
In reply to the issue of how we should be punishing "petty" street crimes, the commenter I was replying to said,
> An exponential back off from society
In my experience, exponentials grow pretty quickly. So yeah, it kinda seems like that's what they were implying.
> Shitting in public, or in other people's private areas, shouldn't have zero consequences simply because the ultimate consequences sound harsh out of context.
Give me the context in which pooping anywhere, any number of times seems reasonable to punish with significant jail time. Yes, there should be some form of discouragement from this but making sure people have access to a toilet seems a lot easier.
> And yes, because jailing someone who has sunken to pooping on the street is generally an important part of their treatment plan. Not letting people live in squalor is actually kindness, even if the alternative is enforced.
Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work.
> Oh my. Are you serious? Harsh measures?
Yeah, I actually believe depriving people of their freedom of movement is a really big deal.
"Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes. Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work."
The chronically homeless drug addicts of san francisco that everyone is concerned with are beyond helping. For the worst 1-10% that stir up all of the news and fears, the solution here is not a treatment plan and release back to society. These folks should not go to solitarty confinement, or even a normal jail, but we absolutely need a long term mental health detention facility process for these folks. Many of these people (1) cause a huge negative impact to everyone around them through their antisocial behavior (2) have a huge cost to society through their consumption of public resources like 911 calls, police/fire/emergency room visits street cleaning of shit (3) these people absolutely refuse any voluntary treatment options up to and including supportive housing that allows drugs and alcohol. They don't want to live in apartments, they don't really even have the concept of agency that we understand, they are so far gone that they need to be cared for by the state in a higher capacity then they are right now.
> Give me the context in which pooping anywhere, any number of times seems reasonable to punish with significant jail time.
Sure, even doing it just once if I were to do it in your living room. Or in front of your house, if I had a reasonable alternative.
> Yes, there should be some form of discouragement from this but making sure people have access to a toilet seems a lot easier.
Okay, so you are fine with arresting anyone who simply won't use the provided toilet? Great.
What if I don't put the toilet right in my yard, but put the toilet over there somewhere, so you're not all up in my space? Why is 'right here' the magical place where people must camp and poop?
> Jail does not help people. It is statistically shown to make their lives materially worse, make them less healthy and make them more likely to commit further crimes.
That's far from true in all contexts. Unhoused criminals on the streets of a modern drug city face incredible risk from being left to live in the camps, and jail doesn't necessarily mean supermax anyways.
> Treatment sure, I'm all for it. Even when it doesn't work.
How wonderfully liberal.
I'm for forcing people into the treatment that's proven to work rather than kindly letting them die horribly.
maybe not prison but a detention and mental health care facility, but yes generally agreed with the above comment. My wife is a dr at a hospital in SF and treats many chronically homeless patients for various issues. There are about 1-2k chronically homeless folks in SF who need treatment against their will/desires (their desires are either to continue drug use until they die or their desires are unintelligible), and the large majority of them will never recover to a point where they will be in a point where they can live outside of an inpatient mental health hospital/detention facility.
I am not opposed to involuntary treatment. I did not let "A Clockwork Orange" disproportionately shape my world view as it seems so many in the intervening generations have. I grew up with family members who required in-patient mental healthcare more than once. And I understand that letting people persistent in psychosis is not "letting them be themselves".
I believe though that making acts which people do in private, severely punishable when performed in public for want of private spaces is a depraved form of puritanical virtue mongering. I don't believe the constitution gives people an absolute right to "virgin eyes" or "virgin ears". And that is a personal judgement you will not convince me of otherwise.
Are you referring to public defection and/or drug use or screaming at the top of one’s lungs for hours at a time?
Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views. Hygiene, noise, environmental ordinances and such!
We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large.
Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything (except in a legal forum) as it is a living document (albeit with a high bar) and more recently demonstrated through overturning judicial rulings.
> Those are primarily public health issues regardless of people’s puritanical views.
So why such a consistent obsession with making them stop or tolerating these acts done in private. If public health is the concern wouldn't needle exchanges, public toilets and street cleaning would be practical solutions? (I guess I should say Victorian rather than Puritanical.)
> We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large.
Which ones?
> Furthermore, the constitution doesn’t get everything right and isn’t a backstop for arguing against anything
As far as I knew it was the basic document which outlined how rights between people and between people and the star should be balanced. And while it has a lot to say about rights to liberty, I find little to indicate we have a right to not see unpleasant things in public.
I don't think the status quo is good. I don't like avoiding shit on the sidewalk. I don't like explaining to my son why a man is stupified with a needle sticking out of his arm.
But I weigh those unpleasant events against throwing people against the system and taking their freedom and it's clear to me that their right to liberty outweighs my right to a pleasant Sunday stroll.
I think there is a moral imperative to change but I think turning once again towards creating a heartless state bureaucracy and pitting it against people who have absolutely nothing is not the change we need. I know that these people have been kicked over and over and over again and that to keep kicking is not a thing that makes sense. They are numb to the pain and you will not change them. You will only show how hard you can kick.
> So why such a consistent obsession with making them stop or tolerating these acts done in private.
My point was that the underlying reason for not tolerating these acts is not because they are being done in public. Them being done in public does make them more obvious and a more pressing concern than if done in private.
There is a concerning obsession if they are done in private as well. And there are efforts to curtail use of drugs, mental health support, and so many such programs for people who partake or suffer in private as well. It doesn’t extend to curtailing their liberties - in that you are correct.
Once it starts spilling into the public, it has an effect on society to a greater degree that when in private. Public hygiene and quality of life standards for a majority are being inhibited because of a minority.
The “obsession” is warranted if the symptoms are getting worse. I want “obsession” to be proportional to the scale of the problem.
> If public health is the concern wouldn't needle exchanges, public toilets and street cleaning would be practical solutions?
Agreed, agreed and agreed :) solutions to symptoms and not the problem though.
>> We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large.
> Which ones?
Many of the ones from the example ordinances I’ve listed. You cannot blare music any any time of the night. You cannot do home construction however you want to. You cannot chop down trees (within reason), pollute streams, burn trash on your private property. You cannot route your waste drain to the street…. And so many more.
> I don't think the status quo is good. I don't like avoiding shit on the sidewalk. I don't like explaining to my son why a man is stupified with a needle sticking out of his arm.
We are on the same page again.
> But I weigh those unpleasant events against throwing people against the system and taking their freedom and it's clear to me that their right to liberty outweighs my right to a pleasant Sunday stroll.
It’s not just a Sunday stroll. It’s also normalizing the behavior to a certain extent by leaving it unchecked.
Also, I do not see any “liberty” on the streets when the people on question barely have the mental wherewithal to think clearly. We don’t let people with mental defects from birth live on the streets no matter their age. Social services curtails their liberty quite severely when compared to you and me more often than not by keeping them in institutions that can care for them. The care is not great in any sense of the word but we also don’t let them live on the streets in the name of liberty. But if they become mentally deficient to the extent of a person who was born with such defects due to their independent actions then we somehow cannot take away some of their liberties. That’s hypocritical. We also take away liberty from people who commit crimes - there is precedent to do so. It needs to be weighed against societal good not “feel good” morality. One is measurable and feelings generally aren’t.
Liberty is a sliding scale not an absolute.
> I think there is a moral imperative to change but I think turning once again towards creating a heartless state bureaucracy and pitting it against people who have absolutely nothing is not the change we need.
Bureaucracy by definition is heartless. Paper pushing that is… the people who administer it are the ones with hearts. Don’t falter bureaucracy for the lack of trained people who can work with those who need the help. There are thousands of people who live in our system who honestly want to help. They are restricted by the resources available to them. The people who have absolutely nothing are better off in a heartless bureaucracy than on the streets dying by the droves with life expectancies approaching that of pre-historic human beings. That is more heartless.
> I know that these people have been kicked over and over and over again and that to keep kicking is not a thing that makes sense.
Leaving them be is just another version of kicking them. Doing nothing is just as extreme as jailing them. We need to do something that is in between those two extremes. In any solution though - any at all - liberties will be infringed upon. I suggest not using infringing on liberties as an argument against doing something in this situation. Because curtailing liberty will be part of any solution to combat a disease that takes over rational thought.
Meta point - I think we are mostly on the same page to be honest. Thank you for debating. I hope my arguments do not come off as haughty or attacking. I’ve had a couple of night caps when posting this so please excuse my ramblings if any.
While I am against our current method of dealing with drugs, hard, lose control of yourself drugs are a scourge on society and the people they infect.
Honestly, I would like to see habitual public drug users who get convicted of that sentenced into a red light district of some sort as punishment. The conviction allows the "system" to sentence them against their free will. They are going to do drugs regardless of the threat of jail, but at the same time, the rest of society shouldn't be subjected to their behavior. If nothing else, ignoring it is pretty unsanitary and can lead to disease, etc. Based on this article, it's fairly unsafe as well.
The "old" method of jail doesn't work and drug waring has stripped us of so many freedoms, people that came before it probably wouldn't recognize the country. On the other hand, just allowing it to happen isn't a solution either.
The only good thing jail does for an addict is forces them to be clean and clear headed for a little while, assuming they aren't smuggled in.
"lose control of yourself" is the problem. If you're doing it in public and shitting everywhere, you've lost control of yourself. If you can't work to pay for your habit because you're too zonked to show up, you've lost control of yourself. If you get evicted because you can't work because of your habit, you've lost control of yourself. If you start robbing people to support your habit, you've lost control of yourself. If drugs become your #1 thing in life and nothing else matters, you've lost control of yourself.
They're a scourge because they're make you feel really good. Then they make you feel just good. Then they don't make you feel anything, but if you stop, you feel like shit, so you can't stop. Now you have a lifelong addiction that will never quit nagging you. If you stop for a while then slip up just once, you can OD and die because your body lost some immunity to it. They can grab ahold of anyone at any time. They can make you do really unethical things you never would have done if it wasn't for the habit. It's a really dirty trick. Alcohol is the same way.
If you do drugs and can keep your shit together, power to you. I would just suggest to be mindful of who's in control: you or the habit.
In any other city in America: if you got high on meth in your own apartment, went outside and starting screaming, pooping, and acting belligerent, you would be arrested.
The problem is the antisocial behavior, homeless or not.
> Its not white kids in the marina that need to walk past piles of shit and needles
Cue Rob Henderson’s luxury beliefs theory: Many rich white liberals support policies that lead to crime/chaos because it signals their high status and the options it affords (ie. I’ll just move to my other house in Marin if SF gets too crazy)
> So much of the problem in SF comes down to the progressive politician types who only want to things that "impact the root causes of crime" and its extremely frustrating and frequently just plain wrong. Yes, you do not solve the "root problem of why people choose to commit crime" by putting repeat offenders in jail, but you do make the world way better for everyone else who is not a criminal.
AND by doing that you do harm, by perpetuating racist systems of of injustice and oppression. The only way to solve that more important problem is by addressing the root causes and allow longer term healing to happen.
Yes, that means some people will be inconvenienced, but that's acceptable and a necessary part of the solution. The only way to speed that phase up is to implement comprehensive reparations quickly.
