Is it OK to harass people for sleeping in public spaces when they have no private places in which to sleep? Most of us will feel uncomfortable when pondering that question and that is a tip-off that we sense a serious moral issue. But then our rationalizing minds will leap forward to provide excuses for harassing those with nowhere to sleep. Let’s discuss those excuses:

Excuse #1: Our community has good programs to assist the poor.

Our community does fund some good social service programs. However, good deeds in one area do not justify a particular moral indiscretion in another area. Prosecuting someone because they cannot afford shelter is simply wrong.

Excuse #2: Nothing can be done about homelessness.

Many things can be done to eliminate or greatly reduce homelessness. Transitional housing, mental health intervention, job programs, “housing first” units and a host of other approaches can help mitigate the scourge of homelessness. In fact, our community already supports some such programs. However, when a person has no other options, prosecuting her for sleeping outside is unacceptable.

Excuse #3: If we provide more shelter more homeless people will come.

There is no good evidence to support this fear. Much of the concern may be about hedonistic, lifestyle travelers. However, any program that provides a safe, dry place for sleeping would undoubtedly have behavioral rules such as prohibitions on drug use and partying. Those whose fundamental interest is in an anarchistic lifestyle will not be very interested in a structured shelter opportunity.

Excuse #4: If homeless people are not kept out of sight the political backlash will endanger other important social programs.

We want our public spaces to be aesthetically attractive. However, that doesn’t mean that we can ignore the plight of people who have nowhere to sleep. Rather, it argues for providing safe, dry, habitable and year-round sleeping locations for those without other options. The politics of doing this may be challenging, but we are morally required to pursue the issue.

Excuse #5: No court has ordered us to stop harassing homeless people.

The issue here is not the legality of persecuting people for sleeping in public. Rather, it is the morality of such prosecutions. There is a difference.

Some examples: (1) The Jim Crow laws that were used to oppress African Americans in the South were upheld by courts for decades, but they were morally wrong from the first moment they were enacted; (2) The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was always immoral even though courts of the time upheld that disgusting practice. (3) It took many years for courts to rule that prosecutions of homeless people for being “vagrants” were illegal even though those prosecutions were always used to harass people for their status of extreme poverty.

As we evaluate the morality of prosecuting those who can’t afford sleeping accommodations, we should not turn first to our legal advisers. Instead we might seek guidance from our religious leaders, philosophers and ethicists. Most importantly, we should listen to our own inner moral voices because they will tell us that harassing those who have no place to sleep is simply unacceptable.

Excuse #6: Homeless defendants can use the “choice of evils” defense when they get to court.

Many homeless defendants successfully overcome charges of sleeping in public if they can persevere to trial. However, from the point of view of morality, no homeless defendant should have to go that far. A person with nowhere to spend the night has a serious problem. Adding the threat of incarceration just makes things worse.

Excuse #7: Other cities prosecute people for camping in public.

A moral lapse is not excused because “everyone is doing it.” Also, it appears that Boulder is especially energetic about pursuing camping prosecutions.

Excuse #8: We are a progressive community so our policies must be OK.

Our community has generally articulated strong humanitarian values. However, precisely because of our progressive nature we must acknowledge the moral issue presented when we prosecute homeless people for sleeping in public.

Because our current approach is morally unacceptable we are compelled to address the problem by figuring out how to create safe and appropriate emergency sleeping alternatives. We are fully capable of doing that. What we cannot allow ourselves to do, however, is to avert our gaze from current policies that fail a basic test of morality.

Jerry Gordon is a former Boulder city attorney. He lives in Boulder.