Do you give money to pan handlers?

[wcknight]

vern humphrey:

There ya go again!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

There was a move for a decade or more to de-institutionalize people. Some folks took the position that if people haven’t committed a crime, and aren’t a danger to others, they shouldn’t be incarcerated.

Do you say we SHOULD lock them up? If so, read up on conditions in the days when we used to do exactly that.

If you say we shouldn’t, then tell me what we do about a woman who has enough money for a bed and meal, a ticket for a free bed and meal AND a family looking for her – and chooses to spend the night in the cold on a bus stop bench.

Which is it? Lock them up against their wills and violate their civil rights, or let them make their own choices?

Quoting Reagan doesn’t make you right, and for all the good things he did for the economy (and it’s questionable didn’t do more long term damage than was necessary), he set the country back 50 years in terms of social issues.

He did nothing for race relations, and did nothing for the poor and homeless. If anything he was a net negative in this regard.

Folks at the time were not in lock up if they were not criminals (as far as I know).

They should make their own choices or IF they can not, whoever is responsible for them should. I DO NOT advocate anyone being locked up or institutionalized against their will if they are no danger to themselves or to others. That is flat out wrong.

What I’m saying is that these folks who live on the outskirts of society, who have some sort of mental illness should not have been simply released out into the streets, especially, when it is really questionable that they can adequately take care of themselves.

wc

 

[wcknight]

PLUS prior to when Reagan released these mental patients, We were not in Victorian times when folks were routinely given lobotomies, or electric shock therapy as common practice.

Patience abuse should not be tolerated, but it should not be replaced by patient neglect. Both can not be justified. But Reagan tried to excuse the latter by chalking it up to budget savings.

wc

 

[Island_Oak]

Never, never, never. We are beseiged with homeless/panhandlers/mentally ill/substance abusers within the city. I think it can be dangerous more often than not to interact with these people–many of whom are quite aggressive esp. since I have been approached while with my children.

I have always taught them that we have an obligation to help the poor, but we need to discern their need and our role in helping them with sound judgment. It does little good to react merely out of momentary pity and could put us in great danger.

We have maintined a long committment to actively support, volunteer and donate to food pantries supported by our parish. My children are active participants in this process as well. I would never give cash to a street person, though applaud those who make an effort to give food–even though I still question the safety of interaction.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wcknight:

Quoting Reagan doesn’t make you right, and for all the good things he did for the economy (and it’s questionable didn’t do more long term damage than was necessary), he set the country back 50 years in terms of social issues.

Who quoted Reagan?

If you say I quoted Reagan, please post the quote.

wcknight:

He did nothing for race relations, and did nothing for the poor and homeless. If anything he was a net negative in this regard.

Folks at the time were not in lock up if they were not criminals (as far as I know).

Then clearly you haven’t studied the history of treatment of the mentally ill in this country.

wcknight:

They should make their own choices or IF they can not, whoever is responsible for them should.

And who would that be? Who is “responsible” for an adult? Who has the power to lock that adult up, against his will?

wcknight:

I DO NOT advocate anyone being locked up or institutionalized against their will if they are no danger to themselves or to others. That is flat out wrong…

Then precisely what ARE you going to do for someone who has the money to pay for a bed and meal, a ticket to get a bed and meal free, and a family to go to – but CHOOSES to spend the night on a bus stop bench?

Fredrico Pena didn’t have an answer. Bill Clinton didn’t have an answer. What’s YOUR answer?

wcknight:

What I’m saying is that these folks who live on the outskirts of society, who have some sort of mental illness should not have been simply released out into the streets, especially, when it is really questionable that they can adequately take care of themselves.

wc

Then you DO propose to lock them up against their will? Even if they haven’t committed any crime, and are no threat to anyone else?

 

[vern_humphrey]

wcknight:

Quoting Reagan doesn’t make you right, and for all the good things he did for the economy (and it’s questionable didn’t do more long term damage than was necessary), he set the country back 50 years in terms of social issues.

Who quoted Reagan?

If you say I quoted Reagan, please post the quote.

wcknight:

He did nothing for race relations, and did nothing for the poor and homeless. If anything he was a net negative in this regard.

Folks at the time were not in lock up if they were not criminals (as far as I know).

Then clearly you haven’t studied the history of treatment of the mentally ill in this country.

wcknight:

They should make their own choices or IF they can not, whoever is responsible for them should.

And who would that be? Who is “responsible” for an adult? Who has the power to lock that adult up, against his will?

wcknight:

I DO NOT advocate anyone being locked up or institutionalized against their will if they are no danger to themselves or to others. That is flat out wrong…

Then precisely what ARE you going to do for someone who has the money to pay for a bed and meal, a ticket to get a bed and meal free, and a family to go to – but CHOOSES to spend the night on a bus stop bench?

Fredrico Pena didn’t have an answer. Bill Clinton didn’t have an answer. What’s YOUR answer?

wcknight:

What I’m saying is that these folks who live on the outskirts of society, who have some sort of mental illness should not have been simply released out into the streets, especially, when it is really questionable that they can adequately take care of themselves.

wc

Then you DO propose to lock them up against their will? Even if they haven’t committed any crime, and are no threat to anyone else?

 

[vern_humphrey]

wcknight:

PLUS prior to when Reagan released these mental patients, We were not in Victorian times when folks were routinely given lobotomies, or electric shock therapy as common practice.

The move to release people from mental institutions began well prior to Reagan. And courts today would not allow you to commit most of the people on the streets.

Lobotomies were practiced into the 1960s and Electro-Convulsive Shock Therapy (ECT) is still practiced today.

wcknight:

Patience abuse should not be tolerated, but it should not be replaced by patient neglect. Both can not be justified. But Reagan tried to excuse the latter by chalking it up to budget savings.

wc

You mean “Patient” abuse. But how do you have a patient, if the person is not committed to an institution?

Do you mean we should reverse the laws and court rulings and lock people up against their wills – even though they have committed no crimes, and are not a danger to others?

 

[Lisa_N]

wcknight:

Yes, there were plenty of homeless and poor long before Reagan, he just made things a whole lot worse, especially for a lot of mental patients. Many of these folks really need to be instituionalized for their own good. It’s questionable whether they can really take care of themselves.

Most are harmless in their paranoia, but they need some sort of care and to put them out on the street is uncharitable to say the least.

It’s good that they are not otherwise mistreated, but to be ignored and put out to fend for themselves is somewhat irresponsible.

WC

The problem with your theory is that Vern is absolutely correct, due to expansion of ‘civil rights’ amongst the mentally ill, they cannot be confined without their permission. Please be realistic about their ability to make good judgement about what is best for them. They will not take meds, remain in counselling, or live in group homes in some cases and we are no longer able to force the issue.

I have a very wealthy friend who adopted two kids, one of whom has serious mental problems. They have tried everything but he refuses to comply with treatment. He sets fires, walks the streets mumbling to himself, and steals things from their home that he sells on the street. He is not considered ‘a danger’ and thus there is little they can do other than try to keep him reasonably safe and prevent him from burning the house down. Now if someone saw this man on the street there would be all this ‘tut tutting’ from bleeding hearts about how he had been ‘abandoned by the system.’ Not true. He is allowed to determine his own future and is frankly unable to function in society.

My sister is a nurse who worked in a group home for the mentally ill. She said there are very rigid rules about what you can and cannot make them do–such as take the meds that allow them to function better in the mainstream. They do the best they can but the doors are not locked and the patients can come and go.

I think you are well intentioned but not well informed about the rights of the mentally ill in our society. I agree that the old days of the institutions, a la “One Flew Over the Kookoo’s Nest” are thankfully gone, but we have not been able to address the problem by mainstreaming them either. IOW it’s a lot more complicated than you might think.

Lisa N

 

[wcknight]

Lisa N:

The problem with your theory is that Vern is absolutely correct, due to expansion of ‘civil rights’ amongst the mentally ill, they cannot be confined without their permission. Please be realistic about their ability to make good judgement about what is best for them. They will not take meds, remain in counselling, or live in group homes in some cases and we are no longer able to force the issue.

…

I think you are well intentioned but not well informed about the rights of the mentally ill in our society. I agree that the old days of the institutions, a la “One Flew Over the Kookoo’s Nest” are thankfully gone, but we have not been able to address the problem by mainstreaming them either. IOW it’s a lot more complicated than you might think.

Lisa N

yes, you’re right. I’m not well informed about the problems or the situations. I only saw the homeless situation before and after Reagan’s term. How or why folks were released, I have not studied the insitutions before or after. I only saw the public situation then and I see it now.

I just question whether the changes were for the better. Are these folks better off homeless and hiding in our cities gutters, or were they better off being cared for in some mental ward. ?

Sure it’s complicated, but just becasue things are complex does not mean they don’t have a solution.

The presentation I saw was just one persons perspective. She is a social worker who deals with the homeless and her opinion was that they were far better off institionalized. Left to their own devices they are often the victim of crimes, rape, and neglect.

As far as civil rights goes, I agree there is nothing we can do if the laws says we can’t do anything about it, except to change the laws. And that brings up another question and that is whose idea it was make the changes to the laws originally (or to start enforcings those changes) ?

The government saved a lot of money when they closed or emptied a lot of these institutions. Mental patients were a drain on the Treasury, plus they can’t vote or pay taxes. It’s an easy call to simply release them out into the public, it makes a lot of sense to me economically. Morally, I think it sucks, but hey that’e just my opinion.

wc

 

[vern_humphrey]

wcknight:

I just question whether the changes were for the better. Are these folks better off homeless and hiding in our cities gutters, or were they better off being cared for in some mental ward.

So give us an answer? Do you think we should lock people up, against their will if they have not committed crimes, and are no threat to others?

wcknight:

Sure it’s complicated, but just becasue things are complex does not mean they don’t have a solution

So give us your solution. Do you think we should lock people up, against their will if they have not committed crimes, and are no threat to others?

wcknight:

The presentation I saw was just one persons perspective. She is a social worker who deals with the homeless and her opinion was that they were far better off institionalized. Left to their own devices they are often the victim of crimes, rape, and neglect.

So do you agree with her? Do you think we should lock people up, against their will if they have not committed crimes, and are no threat to others?

wcknight:

As far as civil rights goes, I agree there is nothing we can do if the laws says we can’t do anything about it, except to change the laws. And that brings up another question and that is whose idea it was make the changes to the laws originally (or to start enforcings those changes) ?

The laws and court cases were pushed by civil libertarians.

When people can be locked up against their will – for no crime at all – the potential for abuse is astronomical.

What kind of trial do you give a person who is accused of “being better off if he were institutionalized?” What kind of defense can they mount?

wcknight:

The government saved a lot of money when they closed or emptied a lot of these institutions. Mental patients were a drain on the Treasury, plus they can’t vote or pay taxes. It’s an easy call to simply release them out into the public, it makes a lot of sense to me economically. Morally, I think it sucks, but hey that’e just my opinion.

wc

Allow me to point out these were STATE institutions – little Federal money was involved. Why do you blame the President, when it was courts and civil-liberties advocates who pushed the issue, and states, not the Federal government, who saved money?

 

[pnewton]

WhiteDove:

Dear Vern,
I’m a nurse, and the number one cause of physical suffering that I see is sloth and gluttony. And, I see a lot of suffering. It pains me greatly.

Good point. So… but them a value meal, but don’t supersize it.

 

[abcdefg]

I once gave a piece of chocalate to one. but when I returned I found a beggar clan showing their pans to me.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I try to be sensitive to panhandlers I saw in downtown Chicago during the daytime. They come down there and have their own turf where they do anything from just sitting there or are approaching people for money.

I tried to give to some, such as blind people, who truly seem to be in need. Some were mad when I did not give to them. Like it or not, I sometimes simply did not have money to hand out.

One night I gave to a guy who was hobbling on a crutch, and then later saw him in the bar at the train station.

In San Francisco I saw people who appeared to be homeless, in tattered clothing. I was more moved to help them out, but how much can one person do?

 

[turboEDvo]

Well, I have offered part of my lunch to homeless people on the street. But, I generally do not have any money on me, except gas money from my carpoolers, which isn’t spent at my discretion. I have also been in a few situations where the pan handlers became aggitated or lashed out toward us. One memorable incident was when two tried to climb into my friend’s car…that was a bit scary. I have a vested interest in protecting people who are in the car with me. Thus, I generally just tell them that I am sorry, and I don’t have any money to give, though I will offer something else if I have it in the car with me.

Eamon

 

[Fashina86]

I usually don’t give them money, but rather get them a piece of food so that I know the money is being used well. In fact, our family tends to keep snack bars in the car, so they can be accessed for times like that!

God Bless–JMJ
Laura

 

[catherinesiena]

Yes, but rarely because I’d rather buy them water or something to eat.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If I have change in my pocket, I might give that away, but I tend to be very wary about pulling out my wallet.

I do sometimes buy the “Streetwise” paper here in Chicago (other cities have similar things - I think it’s “Spare Change” in Boston). Supposedly the vendors have a strict code of conduct to follow. But then occasionally you’ll find a fake Streetwise vendor who has a copy of last week’s paper, and he really just wants a dollar and then doesn’t want to give you the paper. The paper itself is pretty much rubbish - I rarely read it. It probably just makes me feel good, or at least allays the sense of feeling bad. There’s a grocery store near me that almost always has someone standing outside, and I get this feeling that I’m spending $50 on whatever groceries I may want, and yet I’m too stingy to give a dollar to a poor person?

One thing that really annoys me though are the people who come up to you and say “My car’s out of gas a mile away, and I need 10 dollars for gas, plus I need another 10 dollars to rent the can, plus it’s a long walk so I need 10 dollars for a cab”. It’s bad that I’m so cynical, but I’ve heard this enough times that I don’t ever believe it anymore. It’s just sad that there are enough scams out there that it makes me very cold and hard-hearted to people who may actually be in need. That, and in some places (I observed this in downtown San Francisco), you will see a panhandler on every single street corner, all asking for money, and it leads to sort of a compassion fatigue where you just shut down and stop caring, or you realize how monumental a problem poverty is, and how powerless you are in the face of it.

 

[Great-Grandpa-G]

Here in Seattle there is a program which we buy a $20.00 dollar envelope for $10.00 dollars and it has, bus pass, McDonalds certificates and information for St. Vincents and other items worth about $10.00 dollars.

So when you see someone in need hand them an envelope.

 

[JHutch]

No money, though have given food and clothing. Here’s why:
.

I remember one time when I was about 16, my Dad (RIP), gave a scruffy looking man in a wheelchair all the change he had in his pocket (several dollars worth at least). The man was panhandling in front of a local Walgreen’s store.

The man shouted at my father, “C’mon man I don’t want your change!!! How about some Green!!! (cash)”

My Dad shook his head in disbelief and looked as if he had just been robbed.

A few weeks later my father and I were at the Bay Meadows Horse Racing Track when who should we see but the guy in the wheel chair cashing in a para-mutual ticket.

We vowed to each other that we would never give another cent to a panhandler but if we had the opportunity, we would (when possible) give the person something that they really needed at that moment…

 

[JeffreyGerard]

catsrus:

This used to be a confusing subject for me. How do you know what they’ll do with the money?
Then I heard a homily where the priest said to “look for the face of Christ in everyone”. So now I do. It doesn’t matter what they do with the $. Once you’ve given it over, that issue is between the person you handed it to and God.
If I have it, I give it.

Amen. I used to never give money, but recently I reflected on this
and likewise came to same conclusion.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

JeffreyGerard:

Amen. I used to never give money, but recently I reflected on this
and likewise came to same conclusion.

Well the question is do you think it’s acceptable to do this even if you’re violating the law?

You’re making a judgement that giving handouts to street people is actually helping them. That’s debatable at best. Many of these people are menacing the public and your contributions enable them to continue their lives of crime and anti-social behavior.