The only time I would consider "alleged suspect" to be appropriate is if the police HAVE a suspect, but are not releasing the identity of that suspect and the news outlet has gotten information from some other source as to the identity of that suspect.
For someone suspected of a crime and under investigation, suspect would be correct. Someone arrested and/or indicted but not convicted would be the alleged fill-in-the-blank, and someone convicted of the crime would be guilty. Yes, I know that wrongful convictions happen all the time, but given that only the party on trial knows for SURE what's what (and if they are guilty, they're not going to go around BRAGGING about it!), then the court's decision is the only standard we really have. If new evidence comes to light later that casts the conviction into doubt, then I would be willing to back to "the alleged fill-in-the-blank."
As for your question about someone who did something but there are questions as to whether or not that thing is against the law, how about "the accused?" It's a stretch, since the term seems to presuppose that something wrong was done, but I think it's better than the options presented so far in that it atleast doesn't presuppose that wrong doing WAS done by the person in question.
Good description of the case where "alleged suspect" works. Thanks.
Regarding calling a convicted person "suspect" or "alleged": that bit did have the ceveat "If you take the epistemological approach and [wish to] emphasize that only the accused [...] knows for sure ..." (Emphasis added, as well as two words that I only just noticed were missing and will shortly edit into the main entry.]
Anyhow, are they mangling the language on television in Cleveland as they are here in Baltimore?
However, I know that I've heard that term before (I was probably walking past a television shop or something), and it burned my bacon, too. I think it's an annoying mixture of overly-PC-ness and ignorance of what words actually MEANS.
The only time I would consider "alleged suspect" to be appropriate is if the police HAVE a suspect, but are not releasing the identity of that suspect and the news outlet has gotten information from some other source as to the identity of that suspect.
Exactly what I was about to say (so now I don't need to).
I have the impression that this "alleged suspect" garbage comes from some publishers who are a little too afraid of defamation suits, and a lot of sheeple following their lead.
(no subject)
For someone suspected of a crime and under investigation, suspect would be correct. Someone arrested and/or indicted but not convicted would be the alleged fill-in-the-blank, and someone convicted of the crime would be guilty. Yes, I know that wrongful convictions happen all the time, but given that only the party on trial knows for SURE what's what (and if they are guilty, they're not going to go around BRAGGING about it!), then the court's decision is the only standard we really have. If new evidence comes to light later that casts the conviction into doubt, then I would be willing to back to "the alleged fill-in-the-blank."
As for your question about someone who did something but there are questions as to whether or not that thing is against the law, how about "the accused?" It's a stretch, since the term seems to presuppose that something wrong was done, but I think it's better than the options presented so far in that it atleast doesn't presuppose that wrong doing WAS done by the person in question.
(no subject)
Regarding calling a convicted person "suspect" or "alleged": that bit did have the ceveat "If you take the epistemological approach and [wish to] emphasize that only the accused [...] knows for sure ..." (Emphasis added, as well as two words that I only just noticed were missing and will shortly edit into the main entry.]
Anyhow, are they mangling the language on television in Cleveland as they are here in Baltimore?
(no subject)
However, I know that I've heard that term before (I was probably walking past a television shop or something), and it burned my bacon, too. I think it's an annoying mixture of overly-PC-ness and ignorance of what words actually MEANS.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Exactly what I was about to say (so now I don't need to).
I have the impression that this "alleged suspect" garbage comes from some publishers who are a little too afraid of defamation suits, and a lot of sheeple following their lead.