Should panhandling be illegal?

Panhandling should not be illegal because panhandlers are humans too

Question: Should panhandling be illegal?
Position‹2 of 2: No, panhandling should not be illegal
Argument‹2 of 2: Panhandling should not be illegal because panhandlers are humans too

Panhandlers are human too, and no one should be afraid of giving their money. Giving money to panhandlers allows all of us to unite and give back to those in need.

The argument

More often than not, panhandlers are homeless, and they mean no harm. Their circumstances, although unknown, must have been hard for them to end up begging for money. Blaming them for their circumstances is not productive, and we should see them as they are, humans. Donating any food, clothing, or money will help them gain confidence as being part of society. We might not understand how anyone could end up panhandling, but everyone had a life before resorting to panhandling. There should be a much more compassionate approach to these people in need. Even though there are organizations that help the homeless, their efforts still fall short with the already present panhandling population.

Premises

[P1]Panhandlers are most often homeless people who mean no harm and reached their circumstances through hardship, so blaming them is unproductive—they should be seen as the humans they are. [P2] A compassionate approach—donating food, clothing or money—helps them regain confidence and a sense of belonging, especially since existing homeless-aid organizations still fall short of the need. [C] Therefore, because panhandlers are humans too and deserve compassion rather than punishment, panhandling should not be illegal.

Counter-arguments

The short term donating that takes place with panhandlers is not proactive in their situation. If they keep receiving what they need, they will get used to staying in a lacking lifestyle where they simply beg for money their whole lives. Giving back to big organizations that aim to help these individuals get back on track or assimilate them into society is a better way for people to donate. Organizations will also most likely give them a better short term solution such as shelter or food rather than drugs or bad purchases.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This states a disposition rather than an argument. That panhandlers are people who have met with hardship is accepted on both sides; the question is whether soliciting money in public should be prohibited, and describing the people involved sympathetically does not answer it. "Most often" also concedes that the description does not cover every case, which is where restrictions are usually defended. [Rejecting P2] Whether to give directly is a separate question from what the law should permit. The counter's claim that donations entrench the situation bears on what a passer-by should do, and the shortfall in organised provision is a reason to fund services rather than a reason about criminal law. [Rejecting C] The conclusion arrives at a defensible destination by a weak route. The strongest arguments against these ordinances are that asking for help is protected speech, that they penalise poverty itself, and that fines and arrests deepen the condition they respond to — none of which the premises use, leaving the position resting on compassion where an argument was available.