Jared Lee Loughner: Suspect... or Killer?
By Randall Holcombe • Friday January 21, 2011 7:51 AM PDT • 8 Comments
After the shooting that killed six and wounded at least a dozen people, including Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I blogged about the accusations that extreme political rhetoric was to blame for the shooting.
In passing I also remarked “...that news accounts are calling Loughner a ‘suspect’ in the shooting, when after the shooting people took the gun away from him and held him for the police. What kind of Orwellian use of language calls him the suspect, rather than the gunman?”
Several commentators were critical of my remark, saying that our legal system presumes people to be innocent until proven guilty, and at this point Loughner is, in fact, just a suspect. That’s a valid point. Still, I will stand by my point. Does anyone who has followed this case not think that Jared Loughner was the gunman?
The Loughner case is not an isolated incident. Often, where there is overwhelming evidence available to the public that a person committed the crime, the person is referred to as a suspect, not the perpetrator. As a result of cases like this, whereas at one time suspect used to refer to someone who might have committed a crime, now it carries the connotation that there is convincing evidence that the suspect is, in fact, the perpetrator. By using the word this way, suspect has come to mean the person who committed the crime, not someone who there is some reason to think might have.
Because “suspect” no longer means what it used to, we have invented a new term, “person of interest,” to replace what suspect used to mean. Now, if we suspect somebody may have committed a crime, we call that person a person of interest, and if the evidence plainly shows the person did commit the crime, then the person becomes the suspect. The way the term suspect is commonly used is not the same as the old dictionary definition.
The problem is that in cases where there is not solid evidence regarding who is the perpetrator of a crime, we might still call a person of interest a suspect, and today that implies, as in the Loughner case, that we have solid evidence that the suspect is, in fact, the perpetrator. The misuse of language works against the innocent, not in their favor.
As the term is used today, to call someone a suspect means we believe the person is the perpetrator. But, referring back to the dictionary definition, it is easier to call someone a suspect because it gives the accuser an out. We have created ambiguity in the language, so suspect (like many other words) no longer has a precise meaning.
If I say Loughner was the gunman and it turns out not to be true, I was wrong. So, I’d better be careful when I call Loughner the gunman. But if I call someone a suspect, it carries the same connotation, but because the term no longer has a precise meaning, my dictionary-based out is that I just said I suspected the person was the perpetrator. I didn’t say I actually knew it was true.
Innocent until proven guilty? Sure. But the way the term is used today, calling someone a suspect implies the same thing as accusing that person of committing the crime. When someone is referred to as a suspect, the connotation is that the suspect is the perpetrator, not that we are presuming the suspect is innocent.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Criminal Justice, Culture, Law, Media, Personal Liberty, Propaganda, Terrorism, Urban Issues, Weapons 
Randall, not sure what the point is. Our language has been mangled in myriad ways. “Person of interest” was not intended to mean quite “suspect,” but that’s what it means now, given the propensities of our dumbed down media and population.
A few examples: “ideology” is now a pejorative instead of a useful word–it now means “party you’re hacking for” instead of “social/political theory.” A common use: “Oh, that’s just ideology.” Just? As in “merely”?
Then there are people who can’t figure out contractions (the difference, for example, between their, there and they’re–or its and it’s), plurals (how many times have I seen an apostrophe added when the “s” was added to the word–and it wasn’t to make the case genitive?), parts of speech (how many times have I seen “preventative,” a noun, when the writer meant “preventive,” an adjective?); how many folks know the proper usage of “comprise” or “myriad”? And punctuation? Don’t get me started.
Worse still are the analysts, managers and executives that can’t hang a sentence together or spell (very basic analogs of *systems,* which these folks should understand easily), never mind figure out how paragraphs work.
Even worse are those who don’t have the attention span to read more than a line or two before responding. How many e-mails have I sent, to folks who were supposed to be “the brains,” where I asked three questions, bullet-pointed as one-liners, got an answer to one of the questions and noted, by the respondent’s other comments that s/he had not bothered even to read the other two questions? Never mind expecting these “highly educated” and highly placed people to read or understand a detailed analysis, theory or proposal. So, “educated” means what, now, in America? Paid some dues? Paid a LOT of dues, i.e., student loans in the hundreds of thousands? I’ll tell you one thing: it means you’re screwed if you’re educated but not degreed–and by a really bloody expensive school at that.
What do “conservative,” “liberal,” “Democrat” and “Republican” mean any more? Really, we have “blue dog” this and “RINO” that. Those terms are vague now and will be meaningless in a few years as we see congresscritters vying to “position” themselves without taking a real position–the way it’s long been. We have only one true liberal I can think of in Congress, and he’s registered Republican and really does agree with Jefferson. The “liberals” are not liberal at all, and neither are the “conservatives,” although the conservatives are slightly more liberal than the “liberals.” What are the true “left-right” extremes? They are anarchy vs all-powerful state, but THAT meaning has been buried by our dumbed-down schools, press, and congressional dimwits.
The American intellect is in a tragic state of decay. So is our society. I strongly believe that the intellectual decay has caused the social (ideological) degeneration of America and the rest of the West. Word benders rule the day throughout our public institutions, while the sincere are treated like dregs.
To close on a more positive note, it seems clear that there is an uprising against ignorance and sophistry. People are indeed beginning to educate themselves, but in the process, they’re discovering that they have been duped. While it may lead to “angry rhetoric,” it is a very positive development which, if not squelched by the powers that be, could lead to a better, freer, more prosperous America. Even the powers that be would benefit, but they’re even too dumbed down and driven by narcissism (a life, or mind, left to unconsidered impulse?) to recognize this fact.
Randall, I’d encourage you to use your recognizable forum and name not to simply complain about the misuse of a couple of words and rather to militate for intellectual growth, an overall more precise use of language, and partly thereby an understanding of useful political and social theory.
LawrenceD | Jan 23, 2011 | Reply
Thanks for the comments, Lawrence. You ended by saying I should “...not simply complain about the misuse of a couple of words and rather to militate for ... an overall more precise use of language...” which is what I was trying to do. But you may be right that focusing on this one example does not drive the point home.
You gave some good examples, and other examples perhaps more significant than suspect are the use of the word rights to include entitlements, and the use of welfare to mean public charity. As you noted, such misuse of the language stands in the way of “... an understanding of useful political and social theory.”
I was trying to do what you suggest. Thanks for adding your comments and helping to clarify the larger issue.
Randall Holcombe | Jan 23, 2011 | Reply
Randall,
You are correct, that maniac should be called a gunman and a killer, not a person of interest or a suspect.
Who do they think is being fooled when changing to these euphemisms. and if they say it is to protect the rights of the accused, what reasoning is that, when numerous witnesses observed clear guilt in this case.
Ex Recovery System | Jan 23, 2011 | Reply
Randall, I have to apologize for being a bit snarky. I was on the warpath yesterday, and was frustrated that you didn’t lay it on. I just read my comments and laughed myself silly. Yes, I believe every word, but I think I could have been kinder to you. Thanks for your well-measured response.
LawrenceD | Jan 24, 2011 | Reply
You’re right, the Loughner case is not an isolated incident, I’m noticing this elsewhere now too.
In this news account of a different shooting, at first the description is, “A gunman who opened fire...” and later in the story, “Godbee would not give details on who shot the suspect or how many times he was struck. He said police had identified the gunman, but he would not release the name while the investigation was ongoing.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110124/ap_on_re_us/us_detroit_police_shooting
clark | Jan 24, 2011 | Reply
After reading the above, here is a question—why don’t you all get right to the point without tying the English language in knots? Challenge yourselves, instead of using 1,000 or more words, limit your rhetoric to 100. That depicts a GOOD writer. One we will love reading. That’s the point—be effective—be brief!
mary e. | Jan 25, 2011 | Reply
1) Innocent “UNLESS” – NOT “until” – proven guilty. “Until” implies guilt, “Unless” places the burden on the accuser, until assumes that such proof is just a matter of time...
2) So then there is no doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of this man? In which part of the room were you standing, and from what vantage point did you witness the shooting? I am sure that your testamony will be very valuable in the trial. – Oswald may or may not have killed J.F.K., but as he was never proven guilty, he remains innocent.
3) How many men are proven innocent every year after serving decades in prison, only to be released due to new DNA evidence? Not all that glitters is gold, and everything is not always as it appears. I only hope that should I ever be accused of a crime, I am lucky enough to draw jurors with less conviction in their presumptions than you hold in yours.
4) Lastly, a rose by any other name… suspect is a suspect regardless of how the press may try to manipulate it. A person of interest is someone that I would consider dating, not someone suspected of committing a crime…
joe4liberty | Jan 25, 2011 | Reply
For the justice system, he is a suspect and innocent until proven guilty. But for the world he is guilty. You are not a judge or any sort of government employee, so you can call him a killer. So can a newspaper. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a factual principle.
Paul H. Rubin | Jan 25, 2011 | Reply