Geoffrey has hit the nail on the head here. x killed
y. That much we agree on. x is accused of murder by
the family of y, but the court found him innocent. The
family of y think this is a travesty of justice.
Mark
--- Geoffrey Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
Many years ago, I took a couple of journalism
classes in college. One of the
few things I remember is that when writing about
unlawful activities, one
must carefully use specific words to qualify the
charge, such as "accused",
"alleged", "indicted", & "convicted". For example:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
*The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund
the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
*Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
Note carefully that what is being asserted is not
whether or not any of the
people mentioned _actually_ committed the crimes,
merely the opinions of
a large number of people, or the official verdicts
of the American legal
system. And it has been documented that individuals
are occasionally
arrested, tried & convicted for crimes that they are
later shown not to have
committed -- thus we cannot assert that conviction
for a crime means that it
was an NPOV fact that they actualy committed that
specific crime.
Also note that these phrases are based on
Anglo-American law, where people
are arrested, indicted by a grand jury, then found
innocent or guilty by a
court. I'm not sure just what the equivalent
terminology in Civil Law would
be. If a prosecuting judge charges someone with a
crime, would it be correct
to say that the person charged is indicted?
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the
rules of NPOV.
Geoff
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.