Contents

Addressing Common Arguments for Criminalization

Download PDF

Why Criminalization Isn’t the Solution

Criminalization of homelessness often masquerades as a practical or compassionate solution, but closer examination reveals it to be both ineffective and costly. Instead of solving the root causes of homelessness, criminalization prolongs the cycle by creating barriers to stability and recovery. Yet, many people continue to believe in its necessity due to pervasive myths and misinformation. Legal decisions, such as the recent Grants Pass v. Johnson case, can reinforce or legitimize criminalization measures, creating a ripple effect in municipalities seeking similar policies.

Politically expedient, criminalization provides a visible, short-term response that appears to address homelessness by removing individuals from public spaces. It appeals to voters demanding immediate action, even though it fails to address root causes. Pro-criminalization arguments exploit fears about safety, property values, and public order. These emotional appeals often overshadow evidence-based discussions about effective solutions like Housing First.

This section equips you with factual counterarguments to the most common pro-criminalization claims. By pairing these counterpoints with tailored messaging strategies, you can appeal to people's common sense and sense of fairness, effectively addressing emotional and ideological resistance to housing-first approaches. In a time when social media amplifies false narratives about homelessness, an integrated approach grounded in data and empathy is essential.

Planned further studies will seek to answer how best to reconcile most people’s general aversion to criminalization from both a common-sense and empathy perspective with the pro-criminalization policies that are taking hold. 

Common Arguments

COMMON ARGUMENT #1

“Criminalization is the push people need to get themselves off the streets.”

EFFECTIVE COUNTERPOINTS:

  • Root Cause is Housing Costs: Homelessness primarily results from unaffordable housing, not substance use or mental illness. Without stable housing, addressing other challenges becomes nearly impossible.
  • Housing Works: Programs that provide immediate housing with supportive services are twice as effective and half as expensive as criminalization. Many cities have reduced homelessness using this approach.
  • Recovery Starts with Stability: Safe, stable housing is a prerequisite for addressing mental health and substance use issues.

“Stable housing with supportive services is the proven way to help people recover. Criminalization only prolongs their homelessness.”

COMMON ARGUMENT #2

“Unhoused people choose to be homeless and refuse shelters.”

EFFECTIVE COUNTERPOINTS:

  • Barriers to Shelters: Shelters often have rules that make them unfeasible, such as separating families, barring pets, or being unsafe.
  • Trust is Key: Many unhoused people experience severe trauma. Building trust over time increases the likelihood they will accept housing.
  • Customizing Solutions: Making housing options flexible (e.g., allowing pets, accommodating families) ensures more people say yes.

“Most unhoused people eventually choose housing when it’s safe, supportive, and meets their needs.”

COMMON ARGUMENT #3

“Criminalization is compassionate because it prevents severely mentally ill people from living on the streets.”

EFFECTIVE COUNTERPOINTS:

  • Compassion is Housing, Not Jail: Jail exacerbates trauma and creates barriers to recovery, trapping people in homelessness.
  • Housing is Compassionate and Effective: Stable housing allows individuals to access treatment and supportive services tailored to their needs.
  • Positive Outcomes: Cities that prioritize housing and services report significant reductions in chronic homelessness and improved mental health outcomes.

“Putting people in jail doesn’t solve homelessness—it perpetuates it. Real compassion is providing housing and the support they need to thrive.”

COMMON ARGUMENT #4

“Unhoused people make public spaces unsafe for children and neighbors.”

EFFECTIVE COUNTERPOINTS:

  • Homeless People are Victims, Not Perpetrators: Research shows that unhoused people are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators.
  • Ending Homelessness Ends Public Encampments: By providing housing and supportive services, people are less likely to rely on public spaces for shelter.
  • Focus on Solutions, Not Displacement: Criminalization only pushes unhoused people to other areas without addressing the root cause.
  • Encampment Sweeps: don’t improve public safety, and can actually increase crime rates.

“Providing housing is the most effective way to keep public spaces safe and accessible for everyone.”

COMMON ARGUMENT #5

“Formerly homeless people will disrupt apartment buildings and neighborhoods.”

EFFECTIVE COUNTERPOINTS:

  • Supportive Housing Includes Case Management: Housing and service programs ensure case managers are available to address issues that may arise between tenants or with landlords.
  • Proven Success: Studies show that supportive housing doesn’t negatively impact property values or neighborhood safety.
  • No Alternatives: Without housing, individuals remain unhoused, perpetuating the cycle of visible homelessness.

“Supportive housing creates stability, not disruption. Case managers help ensure a positive outcome for everyone.”

COMMON ARGUMENT #6

“Our community needs ordinances as a tool to help address homelessness.”

EFFECTIVE COUNTERPOINTS:

  • Ticketing and Jail Time Aren’t Solutions: These ordinances aren’t tools to help resolve homelessness, they only set homeless people further back in life, perpetuating their state of homelessness. However, law enforcement officers can engage with homeless individuals and connect them to support services without resorting to arrest.
  • Criminalizing Homelessness Doesn’t Address Root Causes: These measures can disproportionately punish people for their circumstances without providing meaningful solutions, such as affordable housing, mental health services, or job training.  
  • Ordinances Can Strain Community Resources: Resources required for enforcement by police, court systems, and administrative processes could be more effectively used for evidence-based interventions, such as housing-first programs or support services.

“Tickets don’t build apartments or heal addiction. Let’s invest in the root causes, not punishments.”

Messaging That Works

HARDEST ARGUMENTS TO ADDRESS:

“Forced treatment works.”

Recovery works best with autonomy and stable housing.

“Stable housing provides the foundation for people to voluntarily engage in treatment, producing the best outcomes”

“Homeless people are dangerous.”

Acknowledge people’s fear while reframing the narrative.

“Homeless people are more often victims of crime. Housing is the solution to creating safer communities.”

“I don’t want to live near a homeless person.”

Reframe concerns with facts.

“Supportive housing doesn’t negatively affect neighborhoods and includes case management to address any issues.”

THE MOST SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES:

Focus on Evidence-Based Success: 

Highlight cities and programs that have effectively reduced homelessness. Example:
“Houston reduced homelessness by 63% using a Housing First approach.”

Share Personal Stories: 

Real stories create emotional connections that move people to action—whether through altruism (a person rebuilding their life) or self-benefit (housing as the only permanent solution to encampments). Data informs, but stories persuade.

Criminalization Isn’t a Solution: 

Emphasize how jail makes it harder for people to exit homelessness. Example: The 2024 Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority report showed that anti-camping ordinances don't work and cost taxpayers more.

Explain the Trauma of Homelessness: 

Help audiences understand how trauma impacts decision-making and why trust-building is essential.

​​Lead with compassion, data, and proven solutions. Share stories that make the issue real, showing that prioritizing housing with supportive services works for individuals and communities alike.

cross