Jerome Murdough's Argumentative Essay

Jerome Murdough, a fifty-six-year-old ex-Marine, was looking for a safe place to sleep in 2013, when he was arrested and charged with trespassing. He was fined over two thousand dollars and, due to his insufficient funds, was sent to Rikers Island—where he met his end. Murdough was in the suicide watch section of the prison due to a history of mental illnesses and was supposed to be periodically checked every fifteen minutes. Autopsies show that he likely died of heatstroke or severe dehydration, which conveys that he was not checked according to protocol (Pearson 1). Jerome Murdough’s death provides dismal insight into the future of the homeless if we continue to make their life-sustaining actions, such as finding a safe place to sleep, illegal
States that are placing bans on homelessness instead of accepting the grants that could be given to them by this act are completely ignoring a solution that would cost them far less than placing people in jail. The Mckinney-Vento Act was created to give federal funds to local, regional, and state homeless assistance programs and in the year of 2015 nearly $2.14 billion was available ("McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants." 1). Due to this act being in place, banning homelessness to try and solve the problem shouldn’t even have to be considered. The use of bans completely ignores a viable solution to the homeless problem. It’s clear that Congress felt homelessness is a big enough problem to make a federal act for it and city government that disregard this act in an attempt to “solve” the problem themselves are making a big mistake. Admittedly, it is a city’s choice to use or not use the government funding available to them. Though this previous statement is true, recent ruling has proven that banning homelessness is out of a city’s
Some people feel that the fines are a reasonable price since they are the same fines any person would receive. These beliefs can be seen in the countless number of trials taking place in different states, where state governments are suing homeless people for not paying fines. When the homeless people say that they can’t pay the fines because they don’t have the money, the state/city officials claim that it is a standard fine (“A Dream Denied” 1).
Although it is true the fines are standard and equal, to a person who typically has nothing but the change in his or her pocket, any fine can be seen as excessive. If the homeless people had the money to pay for these fines, they wouldn’t be on the street in the first place. Additionally, if a homeless person is somehow capable of paying the fines that they have been charged with, that takes away money that they could potentially have used for rent, only adding to the cycle of homelessness. In summation, enforcing the bans on homelessness may be a topic of debate, but it is clear that it is