Max Gutmann weighs in on why the word “suspect” should not be overused.
Sloppy language is everywhere. If you got upset every time someone mixed a metaphor or dangled a modifier, you’d find the world a pretty upsetting place. But some sloppiness is worth cleaning up after.
When someone is charged with a crime, police and journalists are careful to refer to this person as the “suspect,” and not to use any word (criminal, perpetrator, murderer) that would suggest the person’s guilt has been proven. That’s a good thing. But too much of a good thing can ruin it entirely. By overusing the word suspect, we run the risk of undoing all our attempts to be clear and fair.
We now routinely hear about suspects even when there is none. We’re less likely to read that burglars have broken into a home or that a building was defaced by vandals, than that these things were done by suspects — even when no suspect has been identified.
Some reports even refer, absurdly, to “unknown suspects.” A web search on this phrase gets hits from such otherwise reliable sources as the New York Times, and the FBI’s website. If the word “suspect” is being used to avoid accusing anyone, who are we trying to avoid accusing with the phrase “unknown suspect”? And what does our assumption that crimes are committed by suspects do to fairness?