![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Within a social justice ethical framework, the use of ‘enforcement’ measures to prevent people from engaging in ‘street activities’, such as begging and street drinking, can only be morally justified if such initiatives can be shown to benefit the welfare of the vulnerable ‘street users’ affected. It may be hypothesized that this is unlikely, and such measures are bound to be regressive in their effects, but in fact evidence from an evaluation conducted in five locations across England suggests otherwise. Drawing on a normative framework which engages with both moral and political philosophy, this paper argues that the motivations and impacts associated with enforcement are more ethically complex, and less punitive, than they may at first appear. It demonstrates that the use of enforcement measures, when accompanied by appropriate support, can in fact lead to beneficial outcomes for some individuals involved in begging or street drinking in some situations. The outcomes for other members of the street population can, however, be very negative, and are highly unpredictable, such that the use of enforcement is always a high-risk strategy, even if ethically justifiable in certain circumstances.
Notes
1. The Big Issue in the North Trust, based in Manchester, is a charitable body associated with a street paper sold by homeless people.
2. ‘Street user’ was intended as a neutral term to encapsulate all those engaged in any of the relevant activities, including begging, street drinking and/or rough sleeping. The term ‘street homeless’ was avoided in order to obviate the objection that not all those engaged in street drinking or begging are necessarily homeless, though, as noted below, it was found that the majority of ‘street user’ interviewees were in fact homeless.
3. Urban commentators adhering to a ‘revanchist’ reading of street homelessness policies, for example, often resort to polemical language: Mitchell (2001) refers to the ‘genocidal politics’ underpinning street clearance programs in the United States, which, he contends, represent an attempt to ‘annihilate’ homeless people, and Amster (2003, p. 214) likewise talks of an ‘extermination scenario’ with respect to homelessness policies in the United States. At the other end of the opinion spectrum, highly loaded terms are often used by authorities seeking to justify enforcement methods, which imply that whilst some homeless people are ‘genuine’, and therefore ‘legitimate’ recipients of sympathy and concern, others emphatically are not (see Fitzpatrick & Kennedy 2001).
4. These two theories of substantive ethics dominate modern moral philosophy (Williams 1995). Consequentialism dictates that morally ‘good’ actions are those which tend to bring about ‘valuable states of affairs’. The most influential strand of consequentialist ethics—utilitarianism—supports actions which maximize the sum total of societal ‘welfare’ (sometimes called ‘utility’), with welfare usually defined as ‘preference satisfaction’. The main rival to consequentialism, and the primary approach adopted in this paper, is deontological ethics, derived from the Kantian school of thought, which dictates that morally ‘right’ actions are those which involve fulfilling one's duties and obligations, most notably with regard to respecting other people's ‘rights’, regardless of the consequences.
5. But see the comment below regarding ‘moral pluralism’.
6. It should be noted that the objective notion of ‘welfare’ (achieved well-being) being employed here is distinct from the notion of ‘welfare’ commonly used in utilitarian frameworks (i.e. preference satisfaction) (Williams 1995).
7. This has parallels with Norman's (1998) notion of an objectivist substantive ethics based on the satisfaction of basic human needs, of which physical health and functioning is the paradigmatic example.
8. The term ‘homeless’ was defined to include individuals sleeping rough or otherwise lacking settled accommodation—including those in temporary or insecure forms of accommodation such as hostels, night shelters, bed and breakfast hotels, squats, or staying temporarily with family or friends.
9. As Williams (1995) has pointed out, the line between the ‘self’ and ‘other’ in moral considerations can be drawn at different levels, with the self in question on some occasions referring to the individual, the family group, the local community and so on. In this instance we are defining ‘self’ to include all those implementing, or supporting, enforcement actions in local communities.
10. Korsakoff's syndrome is an alcohol-related amnesiac disorder which leads to short-term memory impairment and behavioural change (Lehman et al. 1993).
11. An interesting but unanswered question is what stance these service providers would take if only one or other of these conditions were met. For example, what if there could be shown to be a utilitarian gain only (i.e. enforcement would be likely to benefit the rest of society because of the genuine negative effect the street user was having on those around them, but there was no possibility of a welfare gain for the street user themselves)? Or, alternatively, what if only a social justice gain was possible (i.e. street users were in fact not causing genuine harm to those around them, but enforcement could potentially enhance their personal welfare, which may be in urgent need of protection)?
12. In some case study areas there were additional concerns regarding the justifiability of punishing street users for failing to respond positively to service interventions that do not meet their needs adequately—given acknowledgement that mainstream treatment programmes do not always ‘suit’ members of the street population, and that it can take them substantially longer to succeed in treatment than people with less traumatic backgrounds and/or more established social support networks (see Davies & Waite 2004).
