Negative language and labelling doesn't support desistance

There has been a lot said in the past week about prisoners, including evolving the rehabilitative approaches.  As I’m spending more time talking to individuals who are desisting, I’m increasing my appreciation of the impact that labelling and language has on individuals. 
This post is not intended to pass any political comments but more to highlight how careful we need to be about the language and labels used.  For instance, I’ve used the word “prisoner” to describe someone who is in prison, but this is also a label that carries preconceptions and may not be suitable.

Last week it was announced that there was consideration about using mentor support when prisoners were released.  This would provide support, not currently in place, for those aged over 21 and sentenced to less than 12 months custody.  This support could enable the individual to address the issues linked to their offending.  It sounds like a really good idea but how feasible it is in practice, for such a major change, is yet to be seen.

There has been been talk about the benefits of ex-offenders being more involved in mentoring and rehabilitation.  There are so many examples of the benefits of this approach being demonstrated by organisations countrywide.  Current service users have also spoken to me of how beneficial they have found it and also how they would like to do this further.  In addition to providing support from the perspective of experience, there is also the demonstration of how change can lead to reintegration and “giving something back”.  Both of which are important in the desistance process.

The benefits of engaging ex-offenders/ex-service users/reformed offenders is being demonstrated everyday, but it needs to be treated with respect.  Therefore, I think that there has been some unhelpful language used of late.  One example was comments made in reference to ex-offender mentoring by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling describing individuals as “old lags”.  Instead we need to be more sensitive to the language that we use in order to support individuals in changing and reintegrating.  I don’t think negative labels such as these are helpful.

I’ve been reflecting how prisoners are spoken of (by the media, politicians, professionals, the public) at different stages, because it is known that labels can have a real impact on how an individual feels about themselves.  I’m wondering what is the difference between when giving prisoners the vote making the Prime Minister David Cameron, feel "physically sick", to having “old lags” working in rehabilitation and positive praise of ex-offender mentoring?  Couldn’t this be the same person with emotive discussions and different labels being applied to them? 

The research shows policy makers and the community can support desistance through the actions and language used with encouraging individuals in being part of their community.  This is more difficult if there is an “us and them” approach because it prevents individuals being integrated.

I’m not passing comment on the political ideas, but more reflecting on how we approach discussions about supporting individuals in desisting and being more integrated in their communities.  In particular we should not be using negative labels, even if the labels stop at a point where ‘we’ judge some form of spontaneous redemption for a prisoner.