As a vegan and an animal advocate, this kills me. I was watching a movie about Iran and there was a scene where the police confiscated someone's dog because dogs are "filthy" etc. I can't imagine what I would do if a cop pulled me over and took one of my dogs. That's akin to kidnapping someone's child. It would kill me. However (and I speak to this as a woman of color, as an Iranian American, as a Boricua), trying not to identify too much with the west is not something to just pass on by as not important. Even using the term "west" isn't accurate. Whose west? West of where? Even that is hegemonic. The role of the "west" in race, class, gender, and cultural issues has caused tremendous destruction and trauma throughout history - wars involving Iraq and Iran will tell you that; race relations, poverty and oppression throughout the world will tell you that. That's not blaming the "west," but there is a sense of desperation from "eastern countries" to preserve the values and traditions and ways of being that imperialism has destroyed, and I'm not talking about oppressive theocratic ideals. It's a serious, deep rooted trauma. It's about the "west" and imperialism defining standards and values and mandating the rest of the world to ascribe by these values, it's about telling the rest of the world that their standards and values are inferior and irrelevant. It's experienced on small scales in my own life, daily, so I can't imagine what it is like to experience on national scales, cultural scales. It's an issue of ethnocentrism by the "west" and self-preservation by the "east." That being said, this still kills me. This isn't addressed to the author or any commenters, just in general, just food for though.
typo- raise not arise, lol
I'm getting some mixed messages here. It's ok if you don't agree. That's what discourse is about. You said you understand our point. I understand your point, and I am sure that Wendy does as well. But you also said you don't think you are wrong, and obviously think I am. What you think I am wrong about is my statement that SOs are more likely to reoffend while homeless. But you also said you understand my point. But if there is no research and there is no verdict and the research that does exist supports my point and Wendy's point - a point we are getting from experts in the field, then no one is necessarily right or wrong. Our point of view is based on professional opinion (and logic), and if that's not sufficient for you, that's ok. If you are concerned that other people reading this will be misinformed, well then, that's the purpose of the comment section. So all is well. And just a side note (for the record), my article begs the same questions you arise and also says, "This isn't a cut and dry issue." However, the questions you raised (the questions similar to the ones in the article) in your last comment were not the concerns you raised earlier. Now it seems we have all reached the same conclusion - "I don't know!" And that's ok. Maybe someone will be inspired to conduct some much needed research.
Double profile? Oh - I accidentally signed in with my other email address. It's not personal, never said or implied it was. No we don't agree. That's ok. End of discussion.
hank you for your comments; it was helpful for us who are not scientists to further understand the issue.
The unfortunate thing about research sometimes is that there isn't any for every little detail of existence; however, it's responsible to err on the side of caution if we do know what increases recidivism rates for SOs and what we also know that homelessness exacerbates medical and mental health conditions, and substance abuse -- and the two are closely related. Mr Tobin agrees.
So admitting that there isn't a research study that has been repeated and repeated until we can say that with very little doubt, x causes y, there is no cause and effect evidence. But anyone with a solid research background knows that this is not the only valuable research and that there is no reason to discount other types of research that has been conducted and similar research; if what you suggest was the case, very little would be accomplished. Any good research will tell you that.
In situations with SOs and homelessness, it's safer for everyone to house SOs, based on what we can say is likely. The word /likely/ is not a cause and effect word, although you seemed to overlook this detail. It means that it is a strong possibility, and with an issue like this, you don't want to take chances. Why would anyone want homeless SOs roaming the streets? The argument you making baffles me a little, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Also, housing is a human right. Now, you might disagree that SOs deserve housing and you might believe in residency restrictions, etc, but that is very different than saying that researchers, homeless and SO advocates can't safely make the educated claim that homelessness is likely to increase SO recidivism.
In NYC, I don't usually give money just because I never feel comfortable taking out my wallet in public, but if I do have some in my pocket I will give cash. It doesn't bother me that there's a small percentage here that make it their day's work to panhandle. If they could get a better job, they would. It's more of a symptom of society. If it's for drugs or alcohol, so be it. I understand people not wanting to fund addictions, but while someone is addicted, the substance is something they need. By withholding money, you're not going to help them get better. Recovery goes beyond that. Interesting about the organized crime in undeveloped nations. Very sad.
Agh. These stories are so heartbreaking I almost can't take it. AND I have been working in homeless services for years.
|
8 Actions
|
6 Actions
|
|
3 Actions
|
3 Actions
|
|
|