While they’re portrayed as an essential tool for the criminal justice system (CJS) and local authorities to address antisocial behaviour, Respect Orders threaten to disproportionately target society’s most vulnerable and marginalised individuals. These orders raise vital ethical, moral, and legal concerns, especially when Community Protection Notices (CPNs) and Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) already exist within that arsenal.
So a question is raised – why is there a need for extra punitive tools? And there’s another, crucial question: does ‘respect’ not demand reciprocity – respect for the dignity and rights of people experiencing rough sleeping (PERS)?
Unnecessary expansion of legal sanctions
Respect Orders are being promoted to control disruptive behaviour in public spaces. However, the implications for PERS cannot be overlooked. They are often in highly visible spaces such as parks, doorways, and transport stations – areas where these orders will specifically be enforced.
The rhetoric encompassing the introduction of the orders indicates that they will prey upon individuals whose behaviour is regarded as socially unacceptable. However, ‘social acceptability’ is highly subjective and often socio-economically class-based. It’s likely that these orders will increasingly impact those who have no other place to hide, let alone live, apart from the streets.
The CJS and local authority enforcement personnel already have extensive powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. CPNs and PSPOs, introduced under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, empower officers to issue warnings, financial penalties, and criminal prosecution against behaviour regarded as socially problematic. These Notices and Orders have previously been criticised for being disproportionately broad and used against PERS. For instance, PSPOs have been increasingly used to prohibit loitering and begging in public spaces, criminalising poverty.
So with a number of existing mechanisms already available, the introduction of Respect Orders can be interpreted, not as a necessary response to a legal void, but as an unnecessary amplification of punitive and inequitable use of power.
Fundamentally, Respect Orders continue a trend of policy creation that risks making homelessness a criminal issue and not a social one. PERS are not in a position of choice or power.
Further criminalisation of poverty
PERS experience the impacts of complex structural issues – which may include mental health challenges, domestic violence, lack of affordable housing, job insecurity, addictions, and an underperforming social safety net due to 15 years of ongoing austerity. Rather than ameliorating the root causes of homelessness, powers such as Respect Orders push PERS even further to the margins of society.
Respect Orders may also create a vicious cycle of enforcement, in which PERS are constantly punished for a situation beyond their individual control. With financial penalties and increased risk of legal action, these orders may serve to exacerbate some of the very issues they claim to address, in turn making it impossible for PERS to escape their predicaments.
The definition of Respect Orders raises crucial issues: what does ‘respect’ mean within the context of the order? Respect must be reciprocal. If the state demands that PERS show respect for public spaces, then the CJS and local authorities should also show respect and empathy to those PERS, leaving them with their dignity.
In contrast, police officers and street enforcers frequently interact with PERS in a manner steeped in hostility rather than support. Evidence abounds of PERS having their belongings confiscated, being forcibly removed at night, and being issued with financial penalties with no means of paying.
These approaches do not promote respect. They produce resentment and widen the divide between authorities and the communities they claim to serve. A true respect-based approach needs to be prioritised, one of positive engagement and social support, with pathways out of rough sleeping. But instead there are yet more punitive policies and powers.
Alternatives to punitive policies
If the state is fully committed to tackling antisocial behaviour, specifically by PERS, then the solution can be found not in additional enforcement tools but in holistic, compassionate, and problem-solving interventions.
- Invest in Housing First initiatives: countries adopting such initiatives have seen significant reductions in PERS and associated antisocial behaviours by some PERS.
- Enhanced outreach support: rather than resorting to the police as frontline responders to PERS, governments should employ specialised outreach services. Or even provide a Rough Sleeping Liaison Officer working with the police, who can connect with PERS to help them with housing, health, employment, and other services.
- Reformation of the welfare state: some PERS are in their position due to administrative and bureaucratic failures within the welfare state. Ensuring timely and adequate financial support can prevent people from being trapped into rough sleeping in the first place.
- Community-based solutions: local authorities and the CJS should work alongside charities and business owners to create community-led approaches to supporting PERS, rather than viewing them as a faceless group of people who need to be constantly policed.
Criminal justice needs less criminal, more justice
Respect Orders represent a regressive step in the treatment of PERS, strengthening already punitive approaches rather than creating meaningful, respectful, and equitable solutions. Policymakers need to move away from criminalisation and increase investment in supportive mechanisms that address the structural causes of rough sleeping.
Respect, if it has meaning, needs to go both ways. The police and local authorities need to respect the humanity, rights, and dignity of PERS. Only then can society begin to address the issue of rough sleeping in a manner that’s effective, and embedded in the philosophy of respect and justice for all.
There are many more forms of justice than criminal justice. The attention paid to each is beyond uneven in our society, and the costs of that are far higher than if we collectively behaved fairly and decently. Than if we collectively behaved socially.
