PROPOSAL: Is this what we can expect?

On July 16, the San Francisco Board of Supervisor’s adopted “Resolution 336-19 recognizing the harmful impacts of the institutionalization of the use of pejorative language to refer to formerly incarcerated people.” According to the resolution, “Approximately one of five California residents has a criminal record, and words like “prisoner,” “convict,” “inmate,” or “felon” only serve to obstruct and separate people from society and make the institutionalization of racism and supremacy appear normal.”

It does not require literary genius to recognize the similarities between the goals of the supervisors and the goals of the overlords of Oceana in George Orwell’s novel, “Nineteen Eighty Four.” In the novel, language was limited to a something called Newspeak, which attempts to limit free thought and free speech. In Resolution 336-19, language pertaining to justice-involved individuals is limited to something called first-person language.

The following are examples of appropriate first-person language as set forth in the resolution.

1. “formerly incarcerated person,” “returning resident,” “or “justice involved,” not “felon” or “offender;”

2. “person on parole” or “person under supervision,” not parolee” or “probationer;”

3. “currently incarcerated person,” not “convict” or “inmate;”

4. “person convicted of a drug offense,” not “drug offender;”

5. “a person convicted of a violent/serious offense,” not “violent offender” or “serious offender;”

6. “person” or “individual,” not “returning citizen” or “illegal alien;”

7. “person with a felony conviction,” not “felon;”

8. “young person with justice system involvement” or “young person impacted by the justice system,” not juvenile offender” or “juvenile delinquent;”

9. “person with a history of substance use,” not “addict,” or “substance abuser.”

Is this an example of what North Idaho can expect if we adopt IDOC’s proposal of a 130-bed community re-entry center for “formerly incarcerated persons?”

BOB LaRUE

Hauser