Del Pozo Brandon
Postdoctoral Fellow, the Miriam Hospital and the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Retired Deputy Inspector, New York City Police Department, and former Chief of Police of Burlington, Vermont.
Am Crim Law Rev. 2022 Fall;54(4):1681-1696.
In "Are Police the Key to Public Safety?: The Case of the Unhoused," Barry Friedman argues that one of the problems with policing in the United States is that it encompasses too narrow a view of public safety. In the case of homelessness, this narrow view fails to understand that providing shelter and subsistence to the unhoused is providing them with a basic form of safety as well. By this view, enforcing most laws against the behaviors associated with homelessness is unjust because it penalizes people for seeking a form of personal security that the government should have provided them with. This Essay argues that while this concern should guide police conduct in many cases, it does not mean the police have no legitimate reason to regulate the behavior of homeless people using discretionary enforcement of the criminal law. Police are not only tasked with providing some conception of safety but have a mandate to equitably broker and enforce the cooperative use of a community's public spaces, which is a critical feature of democratic equality for both housed and unhoused people. Enforcing laws against the behaviors associated with homelessness should therefore be a balance between ensuring everyone has access to public spaces for various conceptions of recreation, transportation, expression, and commerce, and an awareness that even the most disruptive and uncooperative uses of public space by homeless people are a product of duress rather than choice. Both the housed and the unhoused have a legitimate claim on the commons, and while one is more urgent than the other, this does not mean the more urgent claim is an unrestricted one. Requirements of social cooperation may still apply to unhoused citizens, and when they do, it is the criminal law that empowers the police to broker and enforce them as necessary..
在《警察是公共安全的关键吗?:无家可归者的案例》一文中,巴里·弗里德曼认为,美国治安工作存在的问题之一是,它对公共安全的看法过于狭隘。就无家可归问题而言,这种狭隘的观点没有认识到,为无家可归者提供住所和生计也是为他们提供一种基本的安全形式。按照这种观点,针对与无家可归相关的行为执行大多数法律是不公正的,因为这会惩罚那些寻求政府本应提供给他们的个人安全形式的人。本文认为,虽然这种担忧在许多情况下应指导警察的行为,但这并不意味着警察没有合法理由通过自由裁量地执行刑法来规范无家可归者的行为。警察不仅肩负着提供某种安全概念的任务,而且有责任公平地促成并执行社区公共空间的合作使用,这对有住房和无住房的人来说都是民主平等的一个关键特征。因此,针对与无家可归相关的行为执行法律应该在确保每个人都能使用公共空间进行各种娱乐、交通、表达和商业活动,以及认识到即使是无家可归者对公共空间最具破坏性和不合作的使用也是胁迫而非选择的结果之间取得平衡。有住房者和无住房者对公共资源都有合法的诉求,虽然一种诉求比另一种更紧迫,但这并不意味着更紧迫的诉求就是不受限制的。社会合作的要求可能仍然适用于无住房的公民,当这些要求适用时,正是刑法赋予警察权力,使其在必要时促成并执行这些要求。