This week, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson, setting up a decision that could be among the most consequential for homelessness in the past 40 years. The case considers whether laws punishing unhoused people for sleeping outdoors with basic items, such as a blanket or cardboard box when no shelter options are available, violate protections against excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment enshrined in the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution.
While we await the June decision, based on my experience as a career police professional, I know criminalizing homelessness is a misguided and inhumane approach that does nothing to address the core of this crisis.
Instead, the sort of ordinances at issue in Grants Pass v. Johnson only compound the problem, further destabilizing individuals who are already struggling to get on their feet, while directing vital law enforcement resources toward low-level quality of life offenses that have little impact on public safety. This response is harmful for both homeless communities and for police, who end up wasting large amounts of time responding to minor incidents—time that could be focused on more violent and dangerous crimes.
Throughout my policing career, I was often in charge of enforcing policies based on criminalization and arrest. After watching many of those policies fail to achieve their desired outcomes, I, like many law enforcement officials across the country, firmly believe that nobody should be punished simply because they don’t have a place to live. Grants Pass v. Johnson comes at a time of understandable frustration, when policymakers nationwide have failed to respond to the mounting homelessness crisis. But this case challenges us to reject false solutions that only churn unhoused people through vicious cycles of arrest, incarceration, and fines.
This alarming trend of homelessness is fueled first and foremost by a lack of affordable housing, as highlighted by research from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. Although many people believe substance use and mental illness are primary causes of homelessness, this is an oversimplification, as the conditions of life on the street often lead to declining mental health or increased drug dependence.
Considering all of these factors, it’s evident that an approach based on criminalization does nothing to address the root causes of homelessness. The criminal justice system does not create more affordable housing. Nor does it provide meaningful assistance to those dealing with mental health or drug challenges. For decades, however, it has served as a pipeline to warehouse individuals who have nowhere else to live.
Policies that place police further at the center of these criminalized responses to homelessness are also ineffective and counterproductive. Law enforcement officers are not trained or equipped to handle the myriad social issues often present among unhoused communities. Nor should they have to be. And yet, law enforcement remains the default response to homelessness in many cities in California and across the country. In San Francisco, for example, police were dispatched to nearly 100,000 complaints involving homelessness in 2017 alone, according to one study by the American Sociological Association.
Related Articles
State probe of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is soon to be released
California should legalize psychedelics but learn from mistakes in marijuana regulation
Susan Shelley: How will the U.S. Supreme Court handle Grants Pass v. Johnson?
EPA short-circuits the U.S. power grid
You are living in an epistemic bubble
This wastes resources and creates an unnecessary danger for everyone involved. Any police-civilian encounter carries some risk of physical force, but these risks in particular are heightened during interactions with unhoused individuals, who are more likely to be in a state of mental or physical health crisis when police arrive. Encouraging local governments to rely increasingly on law enforcement to handle these incidents—rather than trained social workers or crisis intervention specialists—only increases the likelihood of violent outcomes, including fatalities.
Related Articles
State probe of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is soon to be released
California should legalize psychedelics but learn from mistakes in marijuana regulation
Susan Shelley: How will the U.S. Supreme Court handle Grants Pass v. Johnson?
EPA short-circuits the U.S. power grid
You are living in an epistemic bubble
The impending decision at the heart of Grants Pass v. Johnson could potentially set us back in the fight against homelessness by actively undermining more effective strategies. Sweeps of public encampments, for example, do not eliminate homelessness; they merely displace it, scattering the unhoused and making it more difficult for outreach workers to engage them with services. This cycle of forced relocation, coupled with monetary fines and repeated enforcement, only makes it more difficult for unhoused individuals to find the stability necessary to escape homelessness.
At the end of the day, we need compassionate and evidence-based solutions, not punitive measures. We cannot predict what the Supreme Court will decide, but regardless of the outcome, I urge cities not to implement similar measures. It’s time to take a new path forward with robust commitments to more effective, humane solutions.
Lt. Diane Goldstein (Ret.) is a 21-year police veteran and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), a nonprofit group of police, judges, and other law enforcement professionals who support policies that improve public safety and police-community relations.