10 ms·

> They can and they do force them into mental institutions. Okay, but this thread is about homeless housing.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
The point is that this is a big piece of the puzzle of why “Housing First” does not seem to fully solve homelessness in other places that try it. Often people speculate that it’s because the policy is being applied incorrectly. But if there’s some people with mental illnesses that make it impossible to house them normally, and Finland helps them through an entirely different program, that could explain the gap.
bluGill 2y ago
Forcing someone into a mental institution means they are housed. Many (numbers wise, I have no idea what %) of the homeless in the US refuse all government help. In the US if you refuse help and have not committed a serious crime the government cannot force you to get help. I have known a few paranoid schizophrenic people in my life. They needed help, but refused all attempts to get it to them. One eventually did get help - but only because he committed a felony and his condition was obvious enough that the court forced an insanity plea on him. While the above sounds awful, it could be worse. The US used to have a lot of institutions and force people into them all the time. Abuse was common - it is debatable if freezing to death on the streets is worse than the institutions of old - most homeless don't freeze to death (though it happens). The right answer is reform the institutions, but I don't know how you do that.
carlosjobim 2y ago
How can you not understand? Homeless who are mentally ill -> Forcefully put into institutions Homeless who are drug addicts -> Forcefully put into institutions Homeless who are criminals -> Forcefully put into jail or prison How many homeless do you have left after that? The majority of homeless people in any place in the world has one or more of the above problems. Why would anybody be homeless if they didn't? Except for a short time during a crisis.

The point is that this is a big piece of the puzzle of why “Housing First” does not seem to fully solve homelessness in other places that try it. Often people speculate that it’s because the policy is being applied incorrectly. But if there’s some people with mental illnesses that make it impossible to house them normally, and Finland helps them through an entirely different program, that could explain the gap.

bluGill 2y ago

Forcing someone into a mental institution means they are housed. Many (numbers wise, I have no idea what %) of the homeless in the US refuse all government help. In the US if you refuse help and have not committed a serious crime the government cannot force you to get help. I have known a few paranoid schizophrenic people in my life. They needed help, but refused all attempts to get it to them. One eventually did get help - but only because he committed a felony and his condition was obvious enough that the court forced an insanity plea on him. While the above sounds awful, it could be worse. The US used to have a lot of institutions and force people into them all the time. Abuse was common - it is debatable if freezing to death on the streets is worse than the institutions of old - most homeless don't freeze to death (though it happens). The right answer is reform the institutions, but I don't know how you do that.

carlosjobim 2y ago

How can you not understand? Homeless who are mentally ill -> Forcefully put into institutions Homeless who are drug addicts -> Forcefully put into institutions Homeless who are criminals -> Forcefully put into jail or prison How many homeless do you have left after that? The majority of homeless people in any place in the world has one or more of the above problems. Why would anybody be homeless if they didn't? Except for a short time during a crisis.