Last month inspectors reported on a prison where “a variety of well-embedded arrangements aimed at keeping residents and staff safe were in place”. Good news, except perhaps for Prisons Minister Alex Chalk who so dislikes
the term “residents” he is seeking to prevent prison staff using it to describe
or refer to people in prison.
Chalk has more important things to worry about
than opening up an unnecessary front in the culture wars. But he reportedly believes
the increasing use of alternative language is sending mixed messages about how
the state and wider society perceives serious criminals. Apparently “we should
be speaking plainly and not pretending that these people are angels residing in
a cell out of choice”.
While far from being the most important problem in prisons, language
can be important. I recall seeing a notice from a Governor a couple of years
back reminding staff not to talk about “feeding” at mealtimes or “bending up”
when applying restraint. Would Chalk prefer a return to this sort of plain
speaking?
There has been an overdue recognition of the importance of
treating people in prison with respect and dignity, giving them a voice and
showing and encouraging trust. Why? Not least because more positive perceptions of so-called procedural justice by prisoners predict lower levels of misconduct, better
emotional well-being and mental health outcomes and lower rates of future
reoffending.
Of course, the dreadful conditions and experiences faced by many prisoners can make the term resident look peculiarly ironic and ill fitting. But requiring the application of a generic label of prisoner could allow Mr Chalk and his colleagues to ignore those awful realities, or worse justify them under the dismal doctrine of less eligibility. He would do well to remember that people are sentenced to prison as a punishment, not for a punishment.
In an important statement launched this week, the
United Nations is rightly promoting "a
rehabilitative approach to prison
management that fosters the willingness
and ability of prisoners to lead law-abiding
and self-supporting lives upon release, and
that is embedded in a decent, safe and
healthy prison environment and the
positive engagement of officers with
prisoners".
As part of such an approach, surely governors and staff should be able to continue to use
terminology which communicates most productively with prisoners and
their families, something which has been particularly important during the pandemic. If the language contributes towards a more rehabilitative ethos so much the better. Referring to people in prison as residents won’t solve all of the problems in the system but neither will it do any harm.
Yes, I seem to recall the Prison Service's (now defunct) Mission Statement claiming to be doing something along the lines of "Treating Prisoners with Humanity and Respect." Where did things go wrong? It all went wrong when prisoners became money-on-legs for unscrupulous politicians and greedy businesspeople, sometime in the early noughties.
ReplyDelete