The victims of the "bad" homeless are the rest of society. The victims are the people who are assaulted, they're the people whose property is damaged, they're the people who commute by car instead of by bus/train because public transportation isn't safe, they're the people whose communities are destroyed. The solution to this problem is to wall these people off from the rest of society.
The victims of the "good" homeless are the homeless people themselves. The solution to this problem is homeless shelters, universal healthcare, affordable housing, and a stronger social safety net.
The fact that we don't acknowledge how radically different these problems are means that we solve neither of them. Nobody wants to welcome the "bad" homeless back into our communities or give them free handouts, and nobody wants to criminalize health conditions that make it difficult to work, or temporary setbacks that could be overcome if they had a safe place to sleep.
The purpose the distinction serves is to have the correct conversation about these problems. It's to help the "good" homeless who just need a little help, and to limit the catastrophic damage the "bad" homeless are doing to our society.
That shows a disturbing lack of understanding and empathy. A lot of people who you term "bad" homeless started out "good" but saw their mental state severely deteriorate as a consequence of being homeless.
And even for people for whom that's not the case, the solution is to find them help for their mental health issues. Yes, a part of that might involve involuntary commitment to an institution (though CA has lost its ability to do that for the most part), but... damn, "wall these people off from the rest of society"? That's pretty heartless.
Aren’t you agreeing here in all but tone?
Not to mention that I'd expect only the worst cases would require institutionalization. Many with behavioral problems could likely be helped greatly with regular therapy sessions and possibly some medication. No need to put them in an institution for any amount of time.
You want both to happen, but its important to know that there's two category of things that need to happen.
Otherwise, the usage is pretty normal. If I had used “fight” would you also say did I mean to help? Since that’s an incredibly common word to use and it’s also technically an aggressive word.