Homeless shelters still exist too.
It's not about what to call it, it's about whether people are forced to be there.
It's not about what to call it, it's about whether people are forced to be there.
(Most places have something in-between: policies that exclude a fair number of homeless but still leave enough behavioral issues to produce dangerous and unpleasant places).
Of course, resourcing is part of the problem, but it also just can't be one-size fits all.
If you're set to be stuffed like canned sardines in small rooms, for example, there are fewer boundaries regardless of "policy".
If we see that someone in freezing weather prefers sleeping outside to sleeping in a homeless shelter, we're forced to reckon with the fact that homeless shelters must be terrible.
If we lock this person up in an equally terrible asylum, we can ignore that.
Of course you could imagine shelters where people are allowed to stay all day. Or housing first programs. The relevant difference is still whether people are forced to be there.
> Also, there are many homeless families (shelters don't serve them that well), but when it comes to mental illness it's not usually a family thing.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Shelters don't serve families well because they can't stay there together, but this is not a problem for asylums, since asylums would only take those who are mentally ill — so families can't stay there together either, but that's not a problem in this case?
I'm behind you, when are you starting? We have lots of people that need help, please hurry.
Yes, in some cases people should be forced to be there. In other cases no way.
It's not about a specific thing like this. It's about setting aside the resources as a society to deal with the problem, pay experts, and then do what they say. It will take time, we will have to course correct along the way, but we have to first agree to take the journey together.