For most of us, panhandling is an activity that we'll never find ourselves engaging in. But for many of the less fortunate around the world, it's a way of life. You come across a variety of different characters on the street who might be panhandling, all with a different story on how they wound up to be where they are, needing to ask for help from those who pass by on the street in order to get through another day.

The same goes for the homeless who sent up tents in back alleys and parks, under bridges, and in other areas. Many of us will never find ourselves in that situation, where we feel left with no options and nowhere to turn but to try and find a quiet and peaceful place somewhere to rest for the night.

There are many shelters around the world, but a great deal of them are too crowded and a number of people staying at them have been victimized and assaulted; leading them to feel safer on the street. Even though they can and have been targeted on the street as well.

People have different reactions when they see panhandlers or homeless tent encampments, there are those who want to help and do, those who want to ignore, those who get a little disgusted or irritated at the whole thing, and those who want to help but don't because they don't trust that the funds will be put to good use. Thankfully there are many who are willing to help and give to others in need, but it's no surprise that there is pressure from some to see this problem conveniently swept away by just trying to criminalize the matter.

A number of jurisdictions around the US and the world, have been fighting with the homeless in trying to prevent them from utilizing public property to either camp out or ask others for voluntary charitable donations.

At the moment, the ACLU is suing the City of Houston because of their move to ban encampment spaces and panhandling activities. They argue that by doing this, the city has effectively criminalized being homeless. Under the rules, people aren't permitted to sleep in boxes, tents, or any other sort of makeshift shelter, and they can't panhandle within 8 ft of someone on a sidewalk, or near a payphone, or close to an ATM. Those found violating the rules will be faced with a $500 fine, and the demographic which these rules target aren't the sort who can afford a $500 fine. Therefore it'll just be adding even more stress and difficulty to their troubles.

Leonard Read poetically details the hypocrisy here when it comes to political powers trying to criminalize panhandling; he compares the differences between sidewalk panhandling and legalized panhandling in his piece The Case for Panhandling. He points out that in the case of voluntary panhandling, freedom of choice is involved and it doesn't cause any inflation or damage to the market. Legalized panhandling on the other hand doesn't permit freedom of choice, promotes inflation, and is destructive to the economy.

At least those who are begging on the street, are trying to seek funds in a voluntary manner for whatever they want to see funded. And the public has a decision of whether or not they want to give to them. This is a lot more than can be said for the politicians who have passed the new rules seeking to prohibit panhandling and homeless encampments.

The ACLU is arguing that the rules in Houston effectively violate the eighth amendment rights of citizens; the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. They also say that it violates their right to free speech. By criminalizing those people from being able to construct any sort of shelter that can protect them, it infringes upon the ability and the right of those people to use and do what they can peacefully in order to survive.

The number of cities with bans on panhandling has increased roughly 25 percent between just 2011 and 2014. There have been a few federal judges who have struck down these laws already, but the fight continues to be waged across the country.

A More Humane Approach? …

In Portland, Oregon, the city came up with a day-of-work program for panhandlers in the area. They came up with the idea after a city survey showed that those panhandling would rather be working and earning cash, but they have criminal records and other issues that prevent them from being able to. The city came up with a plan to give them jobs in town, twice a week they'll choose five people, to work on 'beautification projects.' They'll be able to earn cash and get paid at the end of the day.

On the other side of the country, in New Haven, CT, they've tried something a little different to curb what they see is an issue of panhandlers on the street. The city installed new meters in the city in order to tackle homelessness in the area. City officials are hoping that citizens put the donations in the meter rather than giving directly to those asking on the street. That money is then given to Liberty Community Services and they funnel it toward projects that help the homeless and those with mental illness and addiction issues etc in the area.

The government has frequently claimed that "public safety" is the reason for their decision to criminalize these acts, as is usually their excuse with everything (either public safety or terrorism). But what about the safety of those who are also included in the public, those who this legislation targets directly? This approach to criminalize and add more trouble to their lives might not be the best solution.