Crime-Focused Labels

What's in a Word? 

As students, faculty, and practitioners in Criminal Justice, we are accustomed to using crime-focused labels to refer to those impacted by the legal system. In all honesty, these terms are easier to say and use than wordy alternatives. We must carefully consider the potential consequences of the language we use based upon our intended goals for the correctional system. 

Harms of Labeling and Stigma 

Crime is socially constructed. This means we as a society determine what behaviors are deemed “illegal.” As you’ll learn in CJ 391: Corrections, individuals are incarcerated for various reasons, a large proportion for non-violent offenses. 

Crime-related labels in particular carry negative connotations, particularly those that are sexual or violent. Such language cues imagery related to stereotypes and prejudices common in the media. Also, reducing a person to a criminal label neglects their holistic identity. 

The stigma associated with criminal labels may become internalized and further reinforced. Scholars suggest that formal labeling of persons who have engaged in law-breaking behavior increases risk for future delinquency or crime. Specifically, such labels can impact one’s self-perception, opportunities, and association with peers. For example, a person who thinks that they are a “felon,” unworthy of second chances, a living wage job, and good public standing may not seek out opportunities of personal advancement or may give up trying to participate in mainstream society. 

 

Willis (2018) discusses the implications of using dehumanizing language in treatment and correctional settings. By using such terms, we are “[calling them] by what we don’t want them to be.” Focusing on one’s past behavior does little to support or promote change in future behaviors. Also, labels foster an “us versus them” culture between staff and clients. If rehabilitation is the goal of correctional systems, we must use language that supports desistance. Research suggests supportive relationships built upon trust, non-judgement, and empathy is what promotes desistance. 

 

Humanizing Alternatives

Advocates across the United States are beginning to explore the use of people-first and identity-first language. In April 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a policy change regarding the language used to describe persons with criminal records. Instead of crime-first language, such as “(ex-)offender,” “criminal,” or “felon,” the Department of Justice promotes the use of person-first language, such as “person with a felony conviction.” Recently, officials in San Francisco (Board of Supervisors) proposed the replacement of words like “felon,” “offender,” “convict” and “parolee” to be swapped for person-centered language instead.

 

Given the harms of dehumanizing crime-focused labels, Boppre & Hart-Johnson (2019) provide humanizing alternatives through the use of person-centered language. Such alternatives can help support desistance and reduce the stigma associated with law-breaking acts. 

In the development of language and terminology, we should value and utilize the perspectives of those directly impacted when considering language. It is important to ask persons directly impacted what terminology they prefer (if any). Persons may refer to themselves as “prison/incarceration survivors.” Some current or formerly incarcerated persons may also refer to themselves as “convicts” or “ex-felons.” Our duty is not to abruptly correct language used by those who have been involved in the system first-hand. 

When possible, labels should be avoided and individuals with lived experience should be asked for their preferred terminology. Otherwise, the use of person-centered language can help support humanization and desistance. As language evolves and shifts over time, so must our approaches and responses.

I model person-centered language throughout this class and I wanted you to know why!