On April 18, a poll by POLITICO found that 37% of voters support arresting homeless people if they refuse to accept shelter, and 24% of voters somewhat support the measure.

According to POLITICO, only 45% of California policy influencers oppose using law enforcement to detain people sleeping on sidewalks and in other public spaces.

These numbers, to me, were staggering.

What gives?

These statistics reflect a growing frustration among Californians at the limited progress they’ve seen in addressing the homelessness crisis. These feelings are justified, in a way — homelessness should not be seen as a choice, but a circumstance that could happen to any individual, and it’s close to unfathomable for someone to refuse a way to escape it.

One proposed measure by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan would penalize anyone who declines three offers of shelter within a 12-18 month period. He argues that “we should not allow homelessness to be a choice.”

Is homelessness a choice?

I would argue that homelessness is never a choice. Even the individuals who would be addressed by measures like Mahan’s don’t really have a choice, because to refuse shelter when living in dehumanizing conditions indicates mental health challenges that are beyond individual choice. By some logic, detaining or arresting people for refusing shelter might just eliminate obstacles that might come in the way of helping these individuals recover.

However, arresting homeless individuals for being homeless when no other options are presented to them is unjust. If not offered a chance to remove themselves from the harmful life situation they are in, they can’t be held responsible for it.

But what happens next?

While the idea to arrest homeless individuals who refuse shelter is not counterproductive, it’s important to consider what would happen to these people afterwards. It’s clear some kind of mental health services would be required — but how would these individuals be charged, and how would these encounters show up on their permanent records?

It’s difficult enough to escape homelessness — it’s even more difficult as an ex-convict with an arrest on their record and no mental health support. Mahan said that his plan was aimed at forcing people into treatment or sheltering those suffering from poor mental health and addiction issues, which is a step in the right direction.

Ultimately, it’s important to recognize homeless individuals not just as eyesores needing to be removed from otherwise-pristine streets, but as real people who are in need of support. It remains to be seen whether Mahan’s plan, as well as others, will address the needs of homeless individuals rather than simply aiming to clear encampments.