Dear Editor
The word, “suspect,” can be used as either a verb or a noun. As a verb, it refers to the act of thinking that someone may have done something, usually something wrong. When used as a noun, it refers to the one suspected of having done something wrong. It may seem as though I'm doing some needless nitpicking when I point out that the media often use it in a way that could blur the line about a very important legal principle — namely, the principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The key part of “to suspect” is that one only thinks someone may have done the deed.
Today's example involves the top story on the TV news — the shooting of 12 police officers in Dallas, Texas. One sub-title read, “Subject killed by …” That man was killed during a gun fight and negotiations with the police during which he explained why he was killing police. At the time this was going on, that man was a perpetrator, not just a suspect. Why do I think that is an important distinction?
When the title “suspect” is, by the media, consistently applied to the perpetrator of a crime, often even when referring directly to that crime, it tends to have the effect of implying guilt to anyone called a suspect by the police or prosecutors. By the time that person gets to trial, guilt and suspicion have already merged in the minds of many.
Maybe such terms as “perpetrator” don't come as easily to the tongue or pen as “suspect,” but I think the media need to clean up their English.
Russell Lahti
Battleford
