A growing literature examines the extent to which the criminal justice system perpetuates poverty and inequality. This research examines how anti-homeless laws produce various forms of police interactions that fall short of arrest, yet have wide-ranging impacts on the urban poor. Our analysis draws on a citywide survey of currently and recently homeless people, along with 43 in-depth interviews, to examine and reveal the mechanisms through which consistent punitive interactions, including move-along orders, citations, and destruction of property, systematically limit homeless people’s access to services, housing, and jobs, while damaging their health, safety, and well-being. Our findings also suggest that antihomeless laws and enforcement fail to reduce urban disorder, but create instead a spatial churn in which homeless people circulate between neighborhoods and police jurisdictions rather than leaving public space. We argue that these laws and their enforcement, which affected the majority of study participants, constitute a larger process of pervasive penality— consistent punitive interactions with state officials that rarely result in arrest, but that do material and psychological harm. This process not only reproduces homelessness, but also deepens racial, gender, and health inequalities among the urban poor. K E Y W O R D S : homelessness; poverty governance; criminal justice; community-based research. In response to the explosive growth of homelessness across the United States in the 1980s, and the judicial overturn of Jim Crow, anti-Okie, “ugly,” and vagrancy laws that traditionally empowered Acknowledgements: This project was made possible by Human Rights Work Group at the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, especially by peer researchers Bilal Ali, George Bracey, Alejandra Cruz, T. J. Johnston, Zenah Rinehardt and Executive Director Jennifer Friedenbach. Isaac Martin provided crucial feedback on research design and writing at every stage of this project. Loı̈c Wacquant and Sandra Susan Smith provided important suggestions. Amy Smith and her students at San Francisco State University provided valuable transcription assistance. We also thank Colleen Rivecca, Paul Boden, Tony Sparks, Freja Sonne, Kelley Cutler, Nick Kimura, Shira Noel, Teresa Gowan, Bob Offer-Westort, Doug Ahlers, Marina Fischer, Sarah Rankin, Arefa Vohra, Andy Chu, Gary Lewis, Lt. Michael Nevin, Brenda Meskan, John Murray, Vilaska Nguyen, Leah Rothstein, Karen Shain, Joe Wilson, Dennis Woo, Kelley Winter, and the anonymous reviewers of Social Problems. Our research was supported by the Sociological Initiatives Foundation, UC Berkeley Center for Human Rights, UC San Diego Center for Global Justice, and the Center for Engaged Scholarship. Chris Herring and Dilara Yarbrough are equal first authors of this manuscript. All three authors contributed to the research design and collection of data. Please direct correspondence to Chris Herring at the Department of Sociology, 410 Barrows Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; email: christoph.herring@berkeley.edu. Dilara Yarbrough may be contacted at the Criminal Justice Studies Program, Department of Public Affairs and Civic Engagement, 261 HSS Building, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 94132; email: dilara@sfsu.edu. VC The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. 1 Social Problems, 2019, 0, 1–19 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spz004 Original Article ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spz004/5422958 by Azona State U niersity user on 05 April 2019 police to manage the down-and-out, U.S. cities created new policies that restricted a wide variety of behaviors associated with homelessness, including panhandling, sleeping in parks, and sitting on sidewalks (Ortiz, Dick, and Rankin 2015). Thirty years later, these laws are spreading at an unprecedented rate in the United States and across the globe (see Evangelista 2013; Huey 2007; Johnsen and Fitzpatrick 2010). Most U.S. cities have municipal codes that punish the life-sustaining behaviors of homeless individuals. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) found that more than half of the 187 cities in its study banned camping and sitting or lying in public, and over two-thirds carried bans on loitering and begging in particular places (2017). Between 2006 and 2016, bans on sitting and lying increased by 52 percent, city-wide camping bans by 69 percent, prohibitions on loitering and loafing citywide by 88 percent, and bans on living in vehicles rose 143 percent. Recent statewide studies by legal scholars have shown that most cities have multiple ordinances on the books (Adcock et al. 2016; Fisher et al. 2015; Frankel, Katovich, and Vedvig 2016; Olson, Macdonald, and Rankin 2015). For instance, California cities have an average of nine anti-homeless laws, while Los Angeles and San Francisco each have 21 and 24 respectively (Fisher et al. 2015). Each law taken on its own may seem limited in its strictures on targeted behaviors; collectively, they effectively criminalize homelessness. As legal scholar Jeremy Waldron presciently wrote over twenty years ago, “what is emerging – and it is not just a matter of fantasy – is a state of affairs in which a million or more citizens have no place to perform elementary human activities like urinating, washing, sleeping, cooking, eating and standing around” (1991:301). What are the impacts of these laws on homelessness and the reproduction of poverty more generally? Social scientists have devoted considerable attention to the politicization of a social problem (housing and social services) into a law enforcement problem (maintaining order) (Smith 1996; Vitale 2008; Wolch and Dear 1994), but far less attention has been given to the ramifications and impact of this transformation on homeless people. Among the first to empirically assess the effect of anti-homeless laws on people experiencing homelessness, this study evaluates some determinants and consequences of their enforcement. When analyzed in isolation, such move-along orders and citations may seem inconsequential, but when analyzed as part of a larger process of criminalization, what we term pervasive penality, anti-homeless enforcement proves to have detrimental consequences for wide swaths of the homeless population. Furthermore, our findings expose how pervasive penality not only reproduces homelessness, but also widens racial, gender, and health inequalities among homeless and precariously housed people. H O M E L E S S N E S S A N D C R I M I N A L I Z A T I O N Over the last 40 years, the United States has witnessed a jail and prison boom of colossal proportions. Surging over 500 percent from merely 380,000 inmates in 1975, U.S. prisons and jails today contain over 2.13 million people (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018). During this same period, homelessness transformed from a rare experience for a small collection of predominantly single men, to a phenomenon that affects a diverse assortment of over three million poor families and individuals in the United States each year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty 2017). As annual funding for public housing plummeted from $27 billion in 1980 to $10 billion at the decade’s end, corrections funding surged from nearly $7 billion to $26.1 billion (Maguire, Pastore, and Flanagan 1997) transforming the U.S. prison system into the primary provider of affordable housing and many of its jails into the largest homeless shelters in town (Wacquant 2009). In the wake of the rise of advanced homelessness and hyper-incarceration, social scientists have established various quantitative correlations between incarceration and homelessness. For instance, 23 percent of homeless people in New York City shelters had spent time in prison or jail in the previous two years (Metraux and Culhane 2006) and 49 percent of homeless people in a national survey disclosed having spent time in a jail and 18 percent having spent time in a state penitentiary compared to five percent of the general population (Burt et al. 1999). Researchers have found that 2 Herring et al. D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spz004/5422958 by Azona State U niersity user on 05 April 2019 homelessness was 7.5 to 11.3 times more prevalent among jail inmates than the general population (Greenberg and Rosenheck 2008). In San Francisco, between 10–24 percent of the jail population identified as homeless at the time of arrest (Applied Survey Research 2013). In sum, there exists an ever-tightening nexus between the criminal justice system and homelessness (see Metraux, Caterina, and Cho 2008). To explain the dynamics behind this penal/homeless nexus, scholars have examined the movement from prison or jail into homelessness and vice versa. On the one hand, scholars have shown how incarceration produces homelessness. This occurs both directly through policies excluding people with a criminal record from private and public housing (Carey 2004; Desmond 2012; Thacher 2008), and indirectly via barriers to accessing work (Pager 2003) and social services (Hays 2003). We also know that homelessness disproportionately exposes people to incarceration through the concentration of homeless services in over-policed inner-city neighborhoods, the temptation to commit crimes of desperation, and what John Irwin (2013) calls “rabble management:” the routine jailing of the disreputable and disaffiliated for minimal offenses in the interests of public order (Gowan 2002, 2010; Snow and Anderson 1993). Yet, while these scholars have traced the criminalization of homelessness as paths between the prison and the street, little is known about the far more frequent contact between homelessness and the criminal

中文翻译：

---

普遍惩罚：贫困的刑事定罪如何使无家可归者长期存在

越来越多的文献研究了刑事司法系统在何种程度上延续了贫困和不平等。这项研究探讨了反无家可归者法律如何产生各种形式的警察互动，这些互动形式并未被逮捕，但却对城市贫民产生了广泛的影响。我们的分析借鉴了对当前和最近无家可归者的全市调查以及 43 次深度访谈，以检查和揭示一致的惩罚性互动（包括搬迁令、引文和财产破坏）系统地限制无家可归者的机制人们获得服务、住房和工作的机会，同时损害他们的健康、安全和福祉。我们的研究结果还表明，反无家可归者的法律和执法未能减少城市混乱，而是创造一种空间流动，让无家可归的人在社区和警察管辖区之间流动，而不是离开公共空间。我们认为，这些影响到大多数研究参与者的法律及其执行构成了一个更大的普遍惩罚过程——与国家官员持续的惩罚性互动，很少导致逮捕，但会造成物质和心理伤害。这一过程不仅再现了无家可归，而且加深了城市贫民之间的种族、性别和健康不平等。关键词：无家可归；贫困治理；刑事司法; 基于社区的研究。为了应对 1980 年代美国无家可归者的爆炸性增长，以及反对 Okie 的 Jim Crow 的司法推翻，“丑陋，”和传统上赋予权力的流浪法致谢：该项目由旧金山无家可归联盟的人权工作组，特别是同行研究人员 Bilal Ali、George Bracey、Alejandra Cruz、TJ Johnston、Zenah Rinehardt 和执行董事 Jennifer Friedenbach 促成. Isaac Martin 在该项目的每个阶段都提供了有关研究设计和写作的重要反馈。Loı̈c Wacquant 和 Sandra Susan Smith 提供了重要的建议。艾米史密斯和她在旧金山州立大学的学生提供了宝贵的转录帮助。我们还要感谢 Colleen Rivecca、Paul Boden、Tony Sparks、Freja Sonne、Kelley Cutler、Nick Kimura、Shira Noel、Teresa Gowan、Bob Offer-Westort、Doug Ahlers、Marina Fischer、Sarah Rankin、Arefa Vohra、Andy Chu、Gary Lewis，迈克尔·内文中尉，布伦达·梅斯坎，John Murray、Vilaska Nguyen、Leah Rothstein、Karen Shain、Joe Wilson、Dennis Woo、Kelley Winter 以及《社会问题》的匿名评论者。我们的研究得到了社会学倡议基金会、加州大学伯克利分校人权中心、加州大学圣地亚哥分校全球正义中心和参与奖学金中心的支持。Chris Herring 和 Dilara Yarbrough 是本手稿的第一作者。所有三位作者都为研究设计和数据收集做出了贡献。请直接与加州大学伯克利分校社会学系 410 Barrows Hall 的 Chris Herring 联系，邮编 94720；电子邮件：christoph.herring@berkeley.edu。Dilara Yarbrough 可以通过刑事司法研究项目联系，公共事务和公民参与部，261 HSS 大楼，旧金山州立大学，旧金山，CA 94132；电子邮件：dilara@sfsu.edu。VC The Author(s) 2019. 牛津大学出版社代表社会问题研究学会出版。版权所有。如需许可，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup.com。1 Social Problems, 2019, 0, 1–19 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spz004 原始文章来自 http/academ ic.p.com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spz004/84222 State U naded rom 2019 年 4 月 5 日，美国城市制定了新政策来限制与无家可归相关的各种行为，包括乞讨、在公园睡觉和坐在人行道上（Ortiz、Dick 和 Rankin，2015 年）。 ）。三十年后，这些法律在美国和全球以前所未有的速度传播（见 Evangelista 2013；Huey 2007；约翰森和菲茨帕特里克，2010 年）。大多数美国城市都有惩罚无家可归者维持生命的行为的市政法规。国家无家可归和贫困问题法律中心 (NLCHP) 发现，在其研究的 187 个城市中，超过一半禁止在公共场所露营和坐着或躺着，超过三分之二的城市禁止在特定场所游荡和乞讨（2017 年）。2006 年至 2016 年间，禁止坐卧不安的人数增加了 52%，全市禁止露营的人数增加了 69%，全市禁止游荡和闲逛的人数增加了 88%，禁止住在车内的人数增加了 143%。法律学者最近在全州范围内进行的研究表明，大多数城市都有多项条例（Adcock 等人，2016 年；Fisher 等人，2015 年；Frankel、Katovich 和 Vedvig 2016 年；Olson、Macdonald 和 Rankin 2015 年）。例如，加州城市平均有 9 项反无家可归者法律，而洛杉矶和旧金山各有 21 项和 24 项（Fisher 等人，2015 年）。每一项单独制定的法律在对目标行为的限制方面似乎都很有限；总的来说，它们有效地将无家可归定为犯罪。正如法律学者 Jeremy Waldron 二十多年前有先见之明地写道，“正在出现的东西——这不仅仅是一个幻想——是一种状况，在这种状况中，一百万或更多的公民没有地方进行基本的人类活动，比如小便、洗衣、睡觉、做饭、吃饭和站着”（1991:301）。这些法律对无家可归和更普遍的贫困再生产有何影响？社会科学家非常关注将社会问题（住房和社会服务）政治化为执法问题（维持秩序）（Smith 1996；Vitale 2008；Wolch 和 Dear 1994），但对这种转变对无家可归者的后果和影响。本研究率先对反无家可归者的法律对无家可归者的影响进行了实证评估，其中评估了执法的一些决定因素和后果。当单独分析时，这种转移命令和引用可能看起来无关紧要，但当作为更大的刑事定罪过程的一部分进行分析时，我们称之为普遍惩罚，事实证明，反无家可归者执法对广大无家可归者产生不利影响。此外，我们的研究结果揭示了普遍的惩罚不仅会导致无家可归，而且还会扩大无家可归者和不稳定住房者之间的种族、性别和健康不平等。无家可归者和罪犯化 在过去的 40 年里，美国见证了大规模的监狱和监狱热潮。与 1975 年的 380,000 名囚犯相比，今天的美国监狱和监狱的囚犯人数增加了 500% 以上（美国司法统计局 2018 年），人数超过 213 万人。在同一时期，无家可归从少数单身男性的罕见经历转变为 每年影响美国超过 300 万贫困家庭和个人的各种现象（国家无家可归和贫困法律中心，2017 年）。随着公共住房的年度资金从 1980 年的 270 亿美元暴跌至本十年末的 100 亿美元，矫正资金从近 70 亿美元飙升至 261 亿美元（Maguire、Pastore 和 Flanagan 1997），将美国监狱系统转变为负担得起的住房的主要提供者。住房和许多监狱变成镇上最大的无家可归者收容所（Wacquant 2009）。随着高级无家可归和高度监禁的兴起，社会科学家已经在监禁和无家可归之间建立了各种定量相关性。例如，在过去两年中，纽约市收容所 23% 的无家可归者曾在监狱或监狱度过（Metraux 和 Culhane 2006），全国调查中 49% 的无家可归者透露曾在监狱中度过，18% 曾在监狱度过与一般人口的 5% 相比，在州立监狱中的时间更长（Burt 等人，1999 年）。研究人员发现 2 Herring 等人。Dow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spz004/5422958 由 Azona State U niersity 用户于 2019 年 4 月 5 日发现，无家可归者比一般监狱中的无家可归者高 7.5 到 11.3 倍人口（格林伯格和罗森赫克 2008）。在旧金山，10% 至 24% 的监狱人口在被捕时被认定为无家可归（Applied Survey Research 2013）。总共，刑事司法系统与无家可归者之间存在着日益紧密的联系（参见 Metraux、Caterina 和 Cho，2008 年）。为了解释这种刑事/无家可归关系背后的动态，学者们研究了从监狱或监狱到无家可归的运动，反之亦然。一方面，学者们已经展示了监禁是如何导致无家可归的。这既直接通过政策将有犯罪记录的人排除在私人和公共住房之外（Carey 2004；Desmond 2012；Thacher 2008），也通过获得工作（Pager 2003）和社会服务（Hays 2003）的障碍间接实现。我们也知道，无家可归者将无家可归者服务集中在过度监管的市中心社区，从而使人们不成比例地面临监禁、犯下绝望罪行的诱惑、以及约翰·欧文（John Irwin，2013 年）所说的“暴民管理”：为了公共秩序的利益，对声名狼藉和无党派关系的人进行常规监禁，以维护公共秩序（Gowan 2002, 2010; Snow and Anderson 1993）。然而，虽然这些学者将无家可归的刑事定罪追溯为监狱和街头之间的通道，但人们对无家可归者与罪犯之间更为频繁的接触知之甚少。