San Francisco board rebrands ‘convicted felon’ as ‘justice-involved person,’ sanitizes other crime lingo
Crime-ridden San Francisco has introduced new sanitized language for criminals, getting rid of words such as “offender” and “addict” while changing “convicted felon” to “justice-involved person.”
The Board of Supervisors adopted the changes last month even as the city reels from one of the highest crime rates in the country and staggering inequality exemplified by pervasive homelessness alongside Silicon Valley wealth.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, from now on a convicted felon or an offender released from custody will be known as a “formerly incarcerated person,” or a “justice-involved” person or just a “returning resident.”
A juvenile “delinquent” will now be called a “young person with justice system involvement,” or a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.”
And drug addicts or substance abusers, meanwhile, will become “a person with a history of substance use.”
“We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done,” Supervisor Matt Haney told the newspaper. “We want them ultimately to become contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet letter that they can never get away from.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t know how other people feel about this, but I feel very mixed about it. This quote is great:
“We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done. We want them ultimately to become contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet letter that they can never get away from.”
However even many on the left think that the situation in San Francisco has gone too far. It’s like there are two extremes, and they are off the charts on the left end of the spectrum.
We can see the ugliness of the extreme right-wing puritanism in places like where people who’ve committed a sexual crime against children are punished for life, and that creates oppression that spills over into many people’s lives that are related to those who’ve been scarlet-lettered. Then there’s San Fran crazy land where crime, rats, needles and human feces is everywhere. Left-wing extremism is also oppressive, and everyone feels it.
So, this is why I’m mixed. Their position is dead on about allowing people who’ve committed a crime in the past to move on, but the problem is that they are radicals, and in-spite of the nice weather, and massive amounts of tax revenue that they get from the tech industry in the area that city is falling apart.
So when you’ve got the most radical factions in society speaking for you that lumps you in with them. So it’s great that someone supports us, but it would be nice if they were somewhere closer to the middle of the spectrum and not so radical, because as they fail, and that city is failing, all that they say and do will be rejected and lumped in with their failure. So, I guess that’s my point. The right-wing puritanism is rejected by more people today, because it’s unsustainably ungracious, and most people know it. The left-wing radicalism is also going to be rejected because it’s also unsustainable.
So, if someone is for us, great, but I hope that it doesn’t hurt more than it helps.
I’m all for remembering people make mistakes and should be set up to succeed and not to fail.
Unfortunately the politicians say these great phrases but do not include the folks required to register for a past sexual offense. I’m tired of hearing things like “second chances” , yet exclude this very population form these policies which have potential.
Use their very own words against these politicians and pundits who talk out of both sides of their faces. CALL THEM OUT!
I hope this sentiment of not using past mistakes to define an entire persons life and contribution to society catches on.
Let people make a manse and move on.
Second-chances advocates are comfortable excluding former sex offenders, because they realize that their audience is unfamiliar with, or dismissive of, sex offender recidivism rates and assume that “they” can’t be “cured” and are therefore fundamentally different from other offenders. They are not at all embarrassed to proclaim, “I’m all for second chances, but I didn’t mean THEM!”
It’s a public education problem. It is taking a long time for he public to be aware of, statistically, who is doing the sex offending and who is not. When more people understand this, “second chances” will be more inclusive.
FEEL GOOD GOVERNMENT–WHAT HAPPENED TO REALITY?
CONSTITUTIONALLY WE COME TO THE BELIEF THAT TIME SERVED EQUALS ABSOLUTIOIN THROUGH ATONEMENT–COURTS PUNISH NOT SOCIETY. DE-CONNOTE LABELS VIA EDUCATION.
No mention of “sanitizing” the label SEX OFFENDER. Wonder why?
“Crime ridden San Francisco” with “one of the highest crime rates in the country”?
I highly doubt that. Fox News probably is just playing to their viewers’ visceral dislike of things they associate with San Francisco. Not sure why FAC would reproduce such an article.
I take it that the SF board refers to former sex offenders required to register as simply, sex offenders.
As I posted elsewhere, this seems to apply to all offenders except anyone convicted of a purported sex offense.
Well remember, all other offenders are people but sex offenders are sub-human according to lawmakers and some radical neighbors and law enforcement. Have you ever heard Mike Chitwood on tv? Two kids can spray paint some graffti on a fence and likes his key word “Sum bags”. What is the purpose of deeming people? I never judged anyone when I worked in law enforcement, I just did my job and treated everyone fairly and let the courts do the rest.