Difference between calling the caseload "sex offender caseload" and "sex offending caseload"?
I work in the probation field. We have a specific caseload to supervise people that have committed sexual crimes. The caseload used to be called the Sex Offender Caseload, now there is a big push to call it the Sex Offending Caseload. If you are a professional in this arena, please help me to understand the difference. I'm not interested in opinions on the nature of this type of crime - we all have our beliefs set in stone on this one. I understand that one label identifies a person while the other identifies a behavior, but realistically does this even impact the individual's rehabilitation at all?
Answer:
It could all be bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Since you are in probation, I would think that the emphasis would be on the people (offenders). However, they are emphasizing the behavior (offending). Also, the way they have worded it, it sounds like the people are continuing to commit sex offenses even on probation (they are currently sex offending). Maybe changing the name to "Sex offending" adds a sense of urgency. Which has some merit considering the recidivism rate for sex offenders. Maybe by implying that it is present tense and that sex offenders could continue to offend, you are more likely to keep better tabs on them.
Or again, it could be all bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, like when my old employer started calling people "consumers" instead of "clients" or "patients" or when Target switched from "customers" to "guests." Doesn't change the service. Just the name.
Just from a grammar point of view, changing the name would be very confusing. It would seem to imply that it's the caseload that's going around doing all the sex offending.
I can understand how there could be two different terms, but to merge them sounds like someone expressing thier own opinions somewhere at the top. It could be used to further the unfounded belief that an offender is always 'offending' and cannot be cured or treated. However, as a probation officer, i imagine you know that your job is in fact to 'rehabilitate' these people regardless of how difficult our laws make it nowdays. Seems like if it was two separate meanings, a sex 'offending' caseload would be non-existent in the sense that the case goes back to court if an offender re-offends. I think the change is either for grammar reasons, or the political reasons I stated above.
More Questions and Answers:
Is this true ?
How does your past experiences effect whether you"ll rape your child?
How does it make you feel when you have a day full of laughter?
Why do i keep wishing that i was someone thats not been through anything in life as opposed to someone whos?
Hora scope?/?
Perfect makes me unhappy?
Isn't that the logical thing to do?
Problem With Authority?
Why does imagination fill in the gaps?
Are you having problem with an "Identity Crisis ?"?
Answer:
It could all be bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Since you are in probation, I would think that the emphasis would be on the people (offenders). However, they are emphasizing the behavior (offending). Also, the way they have worded it, it sounds like the people are continuing to commit sex offenses even on probation (they are currently sex offending). Maybe changing the name to "Sex offending" adds a sense of urgency. Which has some merit considering the recidivism rate for sex offenders. Maybe by implying that it is present tense and that sex offenders could continue to offend, you are more likely to keep better tabs on them.
Or again, it could be all bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, like when my old employer started calling people "consumers" instead of "clients" or "patients" or when Target switched from "customers" to "guests." Doesn't change the service. Just the name.
Just from a grammar point of view, changing the name would be very confusing. It would seem to imply that it's the caseload that's going around doing all the sex offending.
I can understand how there could be two different terms, but to merge them sounds like someone expressing thier own opinions somewhere at the top. It could be used to further the unfounded belief that an offender is always 'offending' and cannot be cured or treated. However, as a probation officer, i imagine you know that your job is in fact to 'rehabilitate' these people regardless of how difficult our laws make it nowdays. Seems like if it was two separate meanings, a sex 'offending' caseload would be non-existent in the sense that the case goes back to court if an offender re-offends. I think the change is either for grammar reasons, or the political reasons I stated above.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: