Timeline for A verb that means “to prove someone is guilty of a crime”
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 27, 2015 at 17:11 | comment | added | jaichele | I'm going to upvote this for "Dead To Rights" because I would consider editing the phrase to describe the evidence as "decisive" rather than just using a word or phrase to implicate Robert. Something like "Lucy had the decisive evidence she needed to get Robert dead to rights." or something like that. | |
| Aug 27, 2015 at 14:42 | comment | added | Code Jockey | Prove is nearly perfect, but is "part of the definition" sought, and is thus missing part of the meaning for the word sought. That meaning has to be provided by additional words, such as guilt or committed. To exonerate is to 'prove someone not guilty', but it does not have an antonym that means to 'prove someone guilty' - we've gotta figure out what is the closest, unless we wanna pull a Shakespeare and try out "unexonerate" (?) | |
| Aug 27, 2015 at 14:33 | comment | added | Code Jockey | @Mazura I think the title is fine as I see it right now - Mari-LouA is looking for such a verb (which would be an antonym for exonerate). However, such a word does not, as far as anyone on this discussion has indicated, currently exist in the English Language. I would say implicate is closer than indict to being an antonym for exonerate. Though indict captures some of the formality that implicate does not, implicate implies actual connection to the events, where indict is essentially just a claim of guilt. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 22:02 | comment | added | Centaurus | Good explanation. +1 | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 20:18 | comment | added | Mazura | @Mari-LouA - I'm a stickler for titles: Evidence that supports the argument that someone is guilty implicates them. Implication does not prove someone is guilty of a crime. That is the word you're looking for, but it's not what the title is asking for. Upon reflection, I'm going to have to upvote Tim's answer, which includes would prove. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 18:17 | comment | added | Mazura | @Mari-LouA - That's the reason I included also in the second example. Take for example an aggravated robbery. They might charge them with the robbery, but hold off on the assault charge, and use the first indictment as a means to acquire enough evidence to hopefully lead to a conviction on that, also. It's easy to get a search warrant for a suspected robber's house, probable cause may be much harder to get on a murder suspect's. My advice: never do two illegal things at the same time. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 17:55 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | +1 for the interesting and new terms. Your first sentence seems to imply that Lucy already had some evidence, but until the discovery there was nothing that indicated Robert was the killer, only suspicions. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 16:44 | history | answered | Mazura | CC BY-SA 3.0 |