The language we use

In "Giving up Crime: Directions for Policy" (see links), the seventh principle raises the issues of the language that we use.

In the discussions that I've had, I would suggest that the language used can form part of labelling.
I'm not going to go through an extensive discussion about the may different theories and approaches of labelling theory and the application to crime.  In brief, Becker (1963) described a person's criminal behaviour being labelled as deviant, with the consequences being that the individual internalises the deviant role.  This was described to me in a recent discussion with an individual who said that "if you [Probation Officer] think I'll act that way, then I will".  Although there are numerous individual factors also involved in this statement, and possible behaviour, it raises the question of whether a label can contribute to further offending behaviour.

Labels don't just relate to "offender", there can be "drug user", "violent offender", "sex offender" or "domestic violence perpetrator" to name a few.  These labels can bring with them pre-conceptions that can be unhelpful and don't encourage change.  The individuals that I've spoken to do not like these labels, in part as they feel that they prevent them from being treated as an individual.  The way I look at this is that someone is being defined by the criminal behaviour at the expense of what else makes them who they are.  As practitioners we cannot disregard the previous behaviour but the individual factors and the potential for change must also be considered.

It is not just individual labelling that can be a factor; within the community the labels can be perpetuated for instance by media coverage that focuses on the negative stories.  How can an individual re-integrate into the community when the community may only see the negative label?  A very open individual said to me that before he was convicted, as an employer, he would not have employed someone with a conviction.  Now that he is looking for work himself he is experiencing the stigma first hand which is understandably difficult.

We need to consider the impact that our language has on the individual and in terms of when Probation link up with other agencies and the community.

In speaking with one individual last week he said that being called a "prolific offender" was a term that he hated.  He described the focus as being on "what I've done rather than on making changes".  In Avon and Somerset the joint Probation and Police Integrated Offender Management strategy for those posing a high/very high risk of re-offending is now called IMPACT.  This is an evolution of "prolifics".  The term was perceived much more favourably by the individual I spoke with.  This is an example of how language and terminology can focus on positive change rather than the past.  If this principle could be applied more widely, then maybe it could support individuals in moving forward and also contribute to shifting attitudes in the community.