It doesn’t work though. You’re also applying this to extreme cases (like most overtly punitive justice policy) and not focusing on the vast majority of people this type of thinking ensnares. That’s not to mention you’re referring to a set of laws specifically shown to be unjust.
Or, (and hear me out): we could use the 80k/yr/person we use to lock people up and actually put treatment and housing initiatives.
-
-
I offer to help these people all the time. They refuse services. There is plenty of housing in San Francisco. I have an employee who was living at a shelter. The goal was to get him his own place. He did that because he wanted to. Utilize the services made available to him to
-
You’re using anecdotal evidence to assume that the infrastructure and funding is in place to actually address this to scale. That’s like me saying I don’t have drug dealers on my street so they must not exist. Evidence based policymaking would support more treatment, less cages.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
get back on his feet.
-
It is temporary not permanent. Many of the unhoused persons are unhoused permanently because they don’t want to be drug free. Drug addiction is the problem.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If they won’t accept treatment than they should be locked up. It is the only way they cannot access drugs.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You clearly are a suburd kid with no first hand knowledge of the system. Keep reading. Arm chair theorist always think they know what’s best.
-
You were the one whose first tweet demanded data. Now you’re getting the data, it’s not my fault you don’t like what it shows
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/04-01_rep_mdtreatmentorincarceration_ac-dp.pdf … - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
