Statewide Prison Language Mandates: Where Intention and Implementation Diverge

• Published date: 01 December 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00328855241286512
• Author: Bryce Kushmerick-McCune,Sydney N. Ingel,Danielle S. Rudes,Wyatt Brown
• Date: 01 December 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

Statewide Prison

Language Mandates:

Where Intention and

Implementation Diverge

Bryce Kushmerick-McCune

1

,

Sydney N. Ingel

2

,DanielleS.Rudes

1

,

and Wyatt Brown

3

Abstract

Person-centered language has increasingly been adopted in criminal legal

contexts. Recognizing the harmful effects of stigmatizing language, some

states have mandated correctional staff to use person-centered language

instead of “prisoner”or “inmate.”However, little is known about the imple-

mentation of these mandates. To address this, the current study utilized

interviews with 87 incarcerated people and 15 staff members in two prisons

in a state that recently adopted a mandate. The f‌indings suggest that the

mandate has not substantially altered the terminology used or treatment

people receive. This research builds understanding of how language affects

the carceral experience, highlighting its limitations when unaccompanied

by culture change.

Keywords

corrections, prison, incarcerated people, correctional staff, person-centered

language mandates, implementation

1

Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

2

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

3

Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Bryce Kushmerick-McCune, Sam Houston State University Department of Criminal Justice and

Criminology, 816 17th St., Huntsville, TX 77340, USA.

Email: bck024@shsu.edu

Article

The Prison Journal

2024, Vol. 104(6) 740–760

© 2024 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855241286512

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Introduction

Across disciplines, person-centered language has increasingly been adopted.

One area with more recent language change is the criminal legal system, and

specif‌ically prisons and jails. Traditionally, people who are incarcerated have

been referred to as “inmates,”“convicts,”“prisoners,”and “offenders.”

Incarcerated people, scholars, advocates have criticized this language for pro-

moting stigmatization. This language is the focus of the popular labeling

theory in criminology (Becker, 1963). Labeling theory explores how labels

are internalized by the individuals to whom they are attached. In recognizing

the harmful effects of traditional carceral language, some scholars, activists,

research groups, news agencies, and non-prof‌it groups have opted to use

person-centered language, like “incarcerated people”or “people in prison”

(Cox, 2020; Ellis, 2020; La Vigne, 2016; Solomon, 2021).

More recently, some state legislatures have implemented laws that request

off‌icial policies and carceral staff to use person-centered language (Cox,

2020). However, little is known about the implementation of these language

mandates and if the new terminology is used by carceral staff. To address this

gap in knowledge, the authors inter viewed 87 incarcerated people an d 15

staff members living and working in two prisons in New York, which

recently adopted the term “incarcer ated individual”in a move towards

person-centered language. This s tudy explores staff and incarcerat ed

people’s perceptions of the new term and the extent to which th is term is

used in practice by staff. Results from thi s study show that the language

mandate did not have much impact on the term inology used or the treatment

incarcerated people receive from sta ff. This calls into question the eff‌icacy of

the mandate to positively impact the inca rcerated population. The authors use

the intention-action gap framewor kde veloped by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)

to frame the analysis, which is useful in under standing why policies may fall

short of their aspirations.

Literature Review

Reasons for Using Person-Centered Language

When society labels a person, that person is treated according to their label

and the person who bears the label internalizes and accepts it (Becker,

1963). Application of a label results in changes to a person’s self-perceptions

and to society’s reactions to that person. The stigmatization that accompanies

some labels may cause status loss, discrimination, disadvantage, and alien-

ation for the labeled person (Link & Phelan, 2001). In response to this,

Kushmerick-McCune et al. 741