3 ms·

These are people. They don't disappear if you crack down on them. How do you propose Seattle treat them? Hassle them with repeated arrests and releases? When h

These are people. They don't disappear if you crack down on them. How do you propose Seattle treat them? Hassle them with repeated arrests and releases? When has this approach ever worked? Put them in prison and make them an expensive, institutionalized ward of the state? I don't want that on my taxes. I know you don't like this interviewee's attitude, but think about it for a second. This is a man who has spent most of his life flipping small-dollar goods outside on a street corner and being looked down on by many. This is not a life most people would envy. I don't condone petty theft, but I don't think Seattle would benefit from this person losing their housing or being prosecuted either.

honkdaddy 5y ago
All I think is that if the city is in the business of giving out free homes (great!), maybe they shouldn't start by giving them to criminals who openly say they're not interested in real work? Maybe single-mothers, veterans, or the physically disabled could be at the front of the line? Andre doesn't represent all homeless people; I'm aware of that. But I think he represents a much larger population than people would like to believe.
- Centigonal 5y ago
  I can agree with that, as long as the process for detemining who gets to be at the front of the line isn't so onerous or expensive to the that it outweighs the benefits.
  - culpable_pickle 5y ago
    99% Invisible did an amazing series on exactly that, how do you pick who gets what. It's called "According to Need" https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
sydbarrett74 5y ago
Petty theft times a hundred or a thousand equals grand theft. He's a habitual offender, ergo, he belongs in prison. He knows exactly what he's doing.
- Centigonal 5y ago
  If we put Andre in prison, Seattle's taxpayers would be paying $3,400/mo to keep him there[1]. I think that's a waste of money. You might say that putting Andre in prison is worth it, because it would discourage him from stealing in the future. Looking at the research around the topic, the US Sentencing Commission found that there is no statistically significant deterrent effect from sentences under 5 years [2]. Other studies have found no deterrent effect from any length of sentencing [3]. So now we're looking at a minimum 5 year sentence for an uncertain positive effect. If prison were a drug or a program that cost $3,400/mo and had to be taken for 5 years for an effect that may not even be real, we would call it a scam. I'm not saying Andre is in the right. I'm saying the carceral way of dealing with poor people who commit petty crimes is expensive and ineffective (maybe even more so than giving someone a free apartment and letting him loiter on the street corner), and we need to consider a different way forward. [1] https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.pdf https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.p... [2] https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu... [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032885511415224?journalCode=tpjd https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003288551141522...
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    Oh, but you are not counting the cost of goods he steals per month unless he is incarcerated.
  - RobertMiller 5y ago
    > If we put Andre in prison, Seattle's taxpayers would be paying $3,400/mo to keep him there He and his ilk do much more damage to the city than that, when they're allowed to continue their criminal lifestyles.
sershe 5y ago
The approach seems to work quite well in many other cities, as close as 5 miles away from Seattle. If you hassle them, they'd go somewhere else. Does it solve THE problem? No. Does it solve A problem? Yes. The hassled people will mostly move somewhere without the hassling. Hence, dumb people who refuse to use the hassling approach will get what they want - endless opportunities to be humane. If absolutely everyone starts hassling them, the problem will become less concentrated and hence easier to address; plus the incentives would change for the people themselves, definitely having effect on the margins.

honkdaddy 5y ago

All I think is that if the city is in the business of giving out free homes (great!), maybe they shouldn't start by giving them to criminals who openly say they're not interested in real work? Maybe single-mothers, veterans, or the physically disabled could be at the front of the line? Andre doesn't represent all homeless people; I'm aware of that. But I think he represents a much larger population than people would like to believe.

Centigonal 5y ago
I can agree with that, as long as the process for detemining who gets to be at the front of the line isn't so onerous or expensive to the that it outweighs the benefits.
- culpable_pickle 5y ago
  99% Invisible did an amazing series on exactly that, how do you pick who gets what. It's called "According to Need" https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ https://99percentinvisible.org/need/

sydbarrett74 5y ago

Petty theft times a hundred or a thousand equals grand theft. He's a habitual offender, ergo, he belongs in prison. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Centigonal 5y ago
If we put Andre in prison, Seattle's taxpayers would be paying $3,400/mo to keep him there[1]. I think that's a waste of money. You might say that putting Andre in prison is worth it, because it would discourage him from stealing in the future. Looking at the research around the topic, the US Sentencing Commission found that there is no statistically significant deterrent effect from sentences under 5 years [2]. Other studies have found no deterrent effect from any length of sentencing [3]. So now we're looking at a minimum 5 year sentence for an uncertain positive effect. If prison were a drug or a program that cost $3,400/mo and had to be taken for 5 years for an effect that may not even be real, we would call it a scam. I'm not saying Andre is in the right. I'm saying the carceral way of dealing with poor people who commit petty crimes is expensive and ineffective (maybe even more so than giving someone a free apartment and letting him loiter on the street corner), and we need to consider a different way forward. [1] https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.pdf https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.p... [2] https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu... [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032885511415224?journalCode=tpjd https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003288551141522...
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Oh, but you are not counting the cost of goods he steals per month unless he is incarcerated.
- RobertMiller 5y ago
  > If we put Andre in prison, Seattle's taxpayers would be paying $3,400/mo to keep him there He and his ilk do much more damage to the city than that, when they're allowed to continue their criminal lifestyles.

sershe 5y ago

The approach seems to work quite well in many other cities, as close as 5 miles away from Seattle. If you hassle them, they'd go somewhere else. Does it solve THE problem? No. Does it solve A problem? Yes. The hassled people will mostly move somewhere without the hassling. Hence, dumb people who refuse to use the hassling approach will get what they want - endless opportunities to be humane. If absolutely everyone starts hassling them, the problem will become less concentrated and hence easier to address; plus the incentives would change for the people themselves, definitely having effect on the margins.