Have you found the website helpful?
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
.jpg)
At Next Chapter Scotland, our commitment to person-centred language is the bedrock of our work. We consciously choose phrases like “a person with convictions” over essentialising and stigmatising labels like “offender”, “criminal”, “deviant”, or “convict”.” We do this to honour the whole person, refusing to reduce anyone to a single act or a state-imposed ‘label’. This language isn’t just about being polite; it’s a political and ethical choice rooted in anti-discrimination and anti-essentialism.
At our recent team meeting this commitment sparked a thoughtful and impassioned staff debate: the tension between preferring the term ‘prisoner’ to the otherwise accepted notion of ‘person in prison.’ What began as a good-natured disagreement evolved into a profound learning experience, culminating in a collaborative compromise we believe captures the best of both perspectives: the term “people who are prisoners.”
This is the story of that debate and the cultural goodwill that guided us to a shared solution.
One side of the debate argued for retaining the term ‘prisoner.’ The case put forward was as follows:
This ‘critical’ perspective rightly warned against conceding to bureaucratic language that masks carceral violence. The term ‘prisoner,’ it was argued, is not an identity or a label but a political reality.
However, another valid point was raised. If we are truly person-centred, can that approach be selective? The very philosophy that leads us to say “person with a conviction” instead of the interchangeable terms of monstrous reduction such as “criminal”, “offender”, “convict” would seem to logically extend to saying “person in prison” instead of “prisoner.”
The concern was that by insisting on person-first language in some areas but not others, we might create an inconsistency that could be confusing or even unintentionally undermine our core principle. Is ‘prisoner,’ despite its powerful political connotations, still defining someone by their circumstance in a way that our other terminology deliberately avoids?
This was not a debate with a right and a wrong side. It was a tension between two valid principles: the need to name systemic violence clearly and the need to uphold a consistent, person-first ethos.
Driven by cultural goodwill, a shared commitment to listening, understanding, and finding a path forward together, we sought a synthesis. We asked: Could we find a term that honours both the individual and the political reality they endure?
The answer we found was “people who are prisoners.”
This compromise achieves a number of crucial things:
And thus we move forward with purpose and principle. Language is not static; it is a living, evolving tool for justice and care. At Next Chapter Scotland our process is as important as our outcome. This debate wasn't about one side winning, but about our community thinking collaboratively; drawing on our lived experience and passion for justice to reach a solution that captures the heart of both perspectives.
“People who are prisoners” is more than a phrase; it is a testament to our collaborative spirit. It allows us to stand in solidarity with people by recognising their full humanity, while simultaneously standing with them in naming the oppressive system they are enduring. It is a term of both compassion and clarity. It is borne of our collective respect and resistance.
We at NCS will continue to navigate these complex conversations with cultural goodwill, always striving for language that dignifies the individual and unflinchingly confronts the structures that seek to diminish them.
