Back in April I drew attention to the negative publicity Heather Munro attracted when as newly-appointed Chief Executive of the London Probation Trust she was taken to task for talking about the Service having 'customers' rather than 'offenders.' There was some serious backtracking as a result, but the issue of just how to refer to people that the Probation Service have a statutory responsibility for has been a thorny one for years. The subject regularly crops up at NAPO AGM's and invariably induces some lively debate.
For many years following the birth of the Service proper under the terms of the 1907 Act the term 'probationer' sufficed, but eventually gave way to the more neutral term 'client', no doubt as a way of acknowledging our civil work as Divorce Court Welfare Officers. When this work was hived off to CAFCAS and the government of the day re-branded us as a Law Enforcement Agency, the term 'offender' became more widely adopted. Of course some of us were deeply unhappy with such a change and resisted this particular nomenclature, sticking resolutely with the neutral term 'client'. At least it's less cynical than the Department of Work and Pensions insisting on claimants being called 'customers'.
Basically, as with many aspects of the Criminal Justice System, there has never been universal acceptance with regard to terminology and recent interest being shown by some probation trusts in desistance theories have raised the whole issue again. I note that over in West Yorks staff are scrambling to win a £20 gift voucher for coming up with a new name, but only for internal use. Presumably the politically-correct external term 'offender' will remain? A classic piece of paternalistic window dressing nonsense as I've ever come across. It's a shame that it coincides with an unfortunate term used by their Trust Chairman at a recent lunchtime speaking engagement. He called them 'scrotes.' Oh dear.
I've always wondered when someone stops becoming an "offender". Do we stop branding them as offenders the day after their licence or order ends? Do they then revert to being non-offenders?
ReplyDeleteTechnically though, if an offender is someone who has been convicted of an offence, then they will always be branded an offender.
Therefore anyone who has ever been convicted of (or committed) an offence should receive this label: Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken, anyone who has an endorsed licence etc etc.
To be honest, I think the term "offender" was conjured up by a few NOMS personnel who had nothing better to do on that particular day.
Keep up the blogging Jim!
Linus
I well remember being taken to task as a new probation officer in 1982 by the then CPO for using the term client rather than offender. Judges never liked us referring to clients either. So I can confirm this debate precedes CAFCAS and NOMS by a couple of decades at least!
ReplyDeleteDon
As an disgruntled police officer I prefer 'Probationer' to all the other terms used. Offender is a bit too punitive even for me. Customer/client implies moral neutrality which is ridiculous. Probation officers are paid by the state to help those who do wrong correct their ways. There is no custom or business aspect to this. In a perfect world , they ( probation officers) and me ( police officers ) would not exist.
ReplyDeleteAs a, apologies.
ReplyDeleteLondon PC,
ReplyDeleteYes I agree 'probationer' would be a good name - the trouble is it doesn't really cover those people sentenced to imprisonment and who come out on licence - so we are left calling them prisoners and licensee's respectively. The term 'client' on the other hand is universal and I take your point about it being 'neutral.' But criminal solicitors use the term and I do believe the polite term for people who frequent the services of prostitutes is 'client'.
Of course the term 'offender' is strictly accurate - the problem becomes at what point they become magicly a 'former' offender? When supervision starts or finishes?
There is no easy and obvious answer - we went through a period of calling people 'cases' but it just didn't sound quite right when told by reception that 'your case was waiting to see you.'
The funny thing about this ridiculous competition is that management are indeed looking for something neutral and not as punitive as offender - I think it's back to client.
Cheers,
Jim
Why not call them criminals?
ReplyDeleteI think you have the same problem in deciding when someone becomes a 'former' criminal!
ReplyDeletePunters is the universal term in my office. Works well.
ReplyDelete