Alleged Murderers

[luckyme]

I've been noticing a trend. Several discussions I become involved in on this forum contain a theme around reality or meaningfulness. The evening news often contains a simplified example.

"The alleged murderer killed him with this knife."

Obviously alleged murderers can't do that. Any entity that did the killing is the murderer not the alleged murderer.

This seems like a reification situation. We create the subjunctive abstract concept of "alleged murderer" and then have a mental slippage and start treating it as if it actually exists.

Ihere are several open threads that dance around issues related to this gory mess, so any comments will be helpful,

thanks, luckyme

[guesswest]

I'm not sure, but I suspect mental slippage of the kind you portray is probably the least likely explanation. I'd suggest it's one of two things:

1. Bad english (most likely) - the alternative sentence is 'the alleged murderer allegedly killed him with this knife'. Obviously there are better ways of formulating that but with the standard of writing on local evening news it probably just doesn't get very close attention and they figure 'it'll do'.

2. Sensationalist media - they don't want to say 'alleged' at all because it makes for more titilating news to say the guy did it, but they have to for legal reasons, so they subvert the meaning with statements like that to plant the seed in people's minds that the person in question is guilty - consciously or unconsciously.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Bad english (most likely) - the alternative sentence is 'the alleged murderer allegedly killed him with this knife'.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original statement is meaningless so we have no way of knowing what was meant. It could be
a) they actually think they are saying something.
( the likeliest from my experience).
Or they meant to say -
b) "The murderer allegedly used this knife."
c) "the murderer used this knife."

I think you're right that it's legal issues that cause them to use 'alleged' and they just toss it into the same place that it would correctly belong in a different situation "George is the alleged murderer."

Of course it's not the grammar we're interested in on this forum ( and I'd be the last person to enter that discussion), I'm interested in the example for any help it would be in the 'reality' and 'existence' and 'nature of things' threads that arise.

thanks, luckyme

[Bork]

"The alleged murderer killed him with this knife."

The meaning is very clear.


"Obviously alleged murderers can't do that. Any entity that did the killing is the murderer not the alleged murderer"

This is just way off base. Alleged murderers can be actual murderers as well. He is called the 'alleged murderer' because that is procedure. Alternatively he could be calling him that because it hasn't been proven yet that he is the murderer. The utterer of the sentence is simply claiming that this person that some people are alleging is the murderer is in fact the murderer and used this knife. Alleging is just claiming. Its so far from a contradiction its redundant. When you claim Bob is the murderer. You are alleging he is the murderer, thus Bob would be an alleged murderer whether he did the crime or not.

Alleging someone is the murderer (or calling them 'the alleged murderer') doesn't somehow make them innocent, or imply that they didn't do it, or imply that you believe they didn't do it.



A real case of what you might to be looking for is:
The average man has 2.5 children.

That sentence has clear meaning even though there isn't any average man walking around with 2.5 kids.
'average man' just refers to something other than what it sounds like it should refer to.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been noticing a trend. Several discussions I become involved in on this forum contain a theme around reality or meaningfulness. The evening news often contains a simplified example.

"The alleged murderer killed him with this knife."

Obviously alleged murderers can't do that. Any entity that did the killing is the murderer not the alleged murderer.

This seems like a reification situation. We create the subjunctive abstract concept of "alleged murderer" and then have a mental slippage and start treating it as if it actually exists.

Ihere are several open threads that dance around issues related to this gory mess, so any comments will be helpful,

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
The principal reason for the "alleged" construction is for the paper to avoid a libel action. It is not liabelous to say someone is alledged to be a murderer (by the state prosecutor, for example). But I find I get annoyed when used incorrectly. A common one is "Joe Bloggs has been charged with the alleged murder of Jim Smith". People are never charged with alleged murder, only murder. Joe Bloggs is alleged to be the murderer but that is something different.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A common one is "Joe Bloggs has been charged with the alleged murder of Jim Smith". People are never charged with alleged murder, only murder. Joe Bloggs is alleged to be the murderer but that is something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's a related concept-blurring to the one I mentioned, and likely the 'alleged' is in there erroneously for the same butt-saving reason.

The murderer is a unique person, the 100% certain doer of a deed.
An alleged murderer is the object of an act, he's an allegee.
That the alleged murderer may be the murderer is not relevant to any statement being made. If we are refering to the doer of the act .. that's the murderer.
"This knife was used by the .... "
"Joe is charged and is the ......."

I thought it would serve as a good example of concept confusion. I don't see how the alleged murderer can use the knife because then he's the murderer, and that's the only entity that has that distinction.

I'll have to look for a different example,
thanks, luckyme

[Bork]

"I thought it would serve as a good example of concept confusion. I don't see how the alleged murderer can use the knife because then he's the murderer, and that's the only entity that has that distinction."

Its not erroneous.
Murderer and alleged murderer can and often do properly refer to the same guy. Its the same entity being referred to with different referring expressions. Each expression draws attention to different properties that the entity has ,but they surely can refer to the same entity.

If there is a basketball in the room, can one not refer to it by the orange ball, and the rubber ball? Its not like once you have dubbed it the orange ball that is the only way it can be rightly refered to. Now if you were calling it the orange ball, and the not-orange ball then it seems there is some confusion. However, alleged murderer and murderer are perfectly consistent properties as well as useful ways to refer to someone who you want to claim is the murderer. See this guy who people are alleging is the murderer, well he is also in fact the murderer.

I suppose if they said he was a merely alleged murderer it would make sense to say he couldn't also be the murderer. However, thats not what is going on here.

"That the alleged murderer may be the murderer is not relevant to any statement being made. If we are refering to the doer of the act .. that's the murderer. "
He can also be an alleged murderer, and referred to correctly using that expression.
This is very relevant to your claim that there is something blurry or confused going on when one claims an alleged murderer is the murderer. It shows that your claim is false.

[guesswest]

The point isn't that the two terms are mutually exclusive, it's that it makes the initial use of the word 'alleged' redundant.

I don't think there's some great epistemic point or reification going on here though. Not normally anyway. I think it's just plain bad english. They're attempting to say 'the guy allegedly murdered x with a knife'.

[Bork]

Post deleted by Bork

[guesswest]

I'm agreeing that they aren't mutually exclusive.

[Lestat]

I understand that from a philosophical standpoint it is either/or. A person can only exist in one sense. But for practical purposes...

If YOU murdered him, then you are the murderer and nothing in between.

But if I have only heard that you murdered him, but can't yet verify it, then from my point of view you are an alleged murderer.

I have no problem with this.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But if I have only heard that you murdered him, but can't yet verify it, then from my point of view you are an alleged murderer.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you've only heard of it from me, you wouldn't make this statement --

"The alleged murderer killed him with this knife."

This statement is by ONE person who starts the sentence with one belief in level of guilt of a specific person "alleged murderer" and finishes the sentence with an unequivical statement of his guilt.

Anyone who states '...killed him.' I do not need to hear the subject of the sentence it will always the a reference to 'the murderer' or 'george' or 'the SOB'. It can't be..
"He who I think possibly did it, I think did it."

Obviously, from comments on here, that may make sense. So it comes down to it makes no sense to me.

I understand the argument that the 'alleged murderer' and 'the murderer' may well be the same person. They occur in different frameworks.
Who is suspected? the color of the ball.
Who actually did it. the shape of the ball.
The shape of the ball is blue.

I hate it when people make what appear to be good comments and I'm too thick headed to see it.

thanks anyway, luckyme :-(

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
See this guy who people are alleging is the murderer, well he is also in fact the murderer.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the NBC news anchor means that by his statement isn't he going to be sued? Just the fate he was trying to avoid by tossing that 'alleged' in there at random.

He has after all accused a specific person of actually committing the crime.

I see another post claims it means the opposite. In a sense, that's my point. It's conflicted, who the H knows what it means.

thanks for taking the time to tackle it, luckyme

[ThinkQuick]

Just wanted to mention that this is actually an interesting thread, and luckyme seems very correct.
In my opinioin, the news should certainly not be adressing the murderer as the alleged murderer if it is intended, as it only sensationalizes the story and isn't very helpful. I agree that they are trying to say "the guy allegedly killed x with a knife"