San Francisco: No more ‘convicted felons’. They’re ‘justice-involved’ persons now.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
San Francisco has apparently decided that referring to convicted felons as, well… convicted felons, is no longer okay, and has rebranded the language to ‘justice-involved person’.
And that’s not the only phrase they’re changing.
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.”
Drug addicts or substance abusers will become “a person with a history of substance use.”
Parolees are now a “person under supervision.” A juvenile “delinquent” will become a “young person with justice system involvement,” or a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.”
Returning resident? Justice-involved? People… let’s be real. A spade is a spade… even if you decide to start calling it something else.
Apparently calling a criminal a criminal isn’t politically correct… and now the city is pushing for new language throughout the criminal justice system to help change the way everyday citizens think about people who commit crimes.
Let’s not forget that San Francisco boasts some pretty intense numbers when it comes to crime rates.
According to Neighborhood Scout, with a crime rate of 70 per one thousand residents, San Francisco has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes – from the smallest towns to the very largest cities.
Maybe they should be teaching the community about how to better their lives… instead of changing the phrasing to make them feel better about their mistakes.
So instead of describing a repeat offending drug addict who stole from you… police might have to refer to them as “a returning resident who was involved with the justice system and who is currently under supervision with a history of substance use.”
Seriously?
This is also the city that started a poop patrol service to help clean human waste off of the streets that stems from an overwhelming homeless population. Yes… it’s literally a crew that cleans up after people instead of finding ways to get them not to defecate in the streets…
Instead of trying to decriminalize our language, why don’t we push our communities to live within the bounds of the law?
Along with the board that came up with these new terms, the district attorney has also pledged his commitment to the change in phrasing.
And just when you thought the liberal la la land called California couldn't be more retarded they pull this.
A ex-con/convicted felon is still a ex-con/convicted felon no matter what the fruitcake snowflakes in SF want to call them to make themselves feel better!
Rather sadly, is anyone at all surprised at the sheer lunacy that emits from California anymore?
Haven't we just come to expect that if we hear something nutty, it emanates from California now?
Convicts are convicts period.
There's no end to what extremists will go to with idiocy.
Sure, I'll defend the PC stuff. Someone's got to, right?
The terms might be somewhat euphemistic, but at least they aren't inaccurate. What they mainly do is make a change from a label to a description. "Justice-involved person" as opposed to "convict" or "person with a history of substance abuse" as opposed to "addict" can be wordy, but it's not dishonest in the way "undocumented worker" is.
They don't misinform or change the character of what we're talking about. Rather, this language reminds us that a person is not 100% defined by a thing like a conviction or a history of drug abuse. They are not the crime or addiction, they are a human being with those events in their history.
Everyone has something in their past they aren't proud of, but they probably didn't spend most of their time at it. Maybe you got a DUI 10 years ago. Is it fair to call you a "criminal" or a "drunk" for the rest of your life?
What many of us did in our past didn't result with me going to prison unlike the criminals.
My son actually brought up a good point. To call ex-convicts "young person with justice system involvement" could put law enforcement in the same category being they have "justice system involvement". His words: "Seems the retards didn't think this through".
It's also a catch-all phrase covering everyone from recently arrested people to those who are merely on parole or other supervision.
Speaking of which, there is more than one kind of supervision. There is informal probation, formal probation and parole. There is also Diversion and Deferred Entry of Judgement, which are virtually the same thing, but technically not.
Additionally, there is supervision for people who have been in prison but because their offense was neither serious nor violent, they are supervised by the county and not the state. This is called Post Release Community Supervision. For some reason, we refer to it casually as "pros."
The bottom line is that in talking about these cases generally, "justice involved" or "formerly incarcerated person" might actually save time.
Bullshit. It's a change in terminology so that even the criminal element don't get their feelings hurt.
It does save time. The minute I hear "justice involved" or formerly incarcerated person" come out of somebody's mouth, my respect for that person IMMEDIATELY goes away and I'll treat them as the child they are acting like. Saves me the time from of having to find out later that they can't handle reality.
"Victim of personal irresponsible behavior" seems to be where this is leading.
Are we supposed to believe that serving time for crime is just another participation award? And how will the 'new' language help with background checks and preventing crime?
San Francisco isn't doing this for the benefit of those who are victims of their own irresponsible behavior. San Francisco wants to change the language for marketing purposes to improve the city's image for the benefit land developers and businesses.
I don't think they claimed it would do either of those things. I don't think that's the point.
More people means more crime. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.
Personally, I think it's stupid, but I don't live there so I don't care. That being said? As long as a felon remains a felon, (and they are just changing the terms), who cares.
And it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to read what stats were quoted and clearly see that they were per 1000 residents.
From the article:
Well, looky there! ALL communities--from the smallest to the largest!