Have you observed that media outlets frequently use the adjectival term ‘alleged’ when referring to individuals who, although charged with criminal offences, have not yet been convicted?
The adjective ‘alleged’ is applied, not only to people suspected of criminal activity, but also to describe the allegedly illegal act itself. For instance, in cases like an ‘alleged abduction’. Additionally, the adverbial word ‘allegedly’ is invariably applied to qualify the verb that describes the action of a person.
This approach relies on the idea that an individual is deemed guilty only after a conviction for the crime they are charged with. It is a cherished principle of our legal system that assumes a person is innocent of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law. Journalists, commentators, and politicians also frequently use the term ‘alleged’ to protect themselves from possible defamation lawsuits.
Nevertheless, the overuse of the adjective ‘alleged’ and the adverb ‘allegedly’ sounds far-fetched, insincere, robotic, and repetitive, especially in cases where the identity of an offender and the crimes are widely known and have objectively occurred beyond reasonable doubt.
There are good reasons why, in our communications with other people, we should desist from such deceptive use of the English language.
First, it is patently insincere to still speak about the ‘alleged’ offender when the guilt of the offender is beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases where the offender has been caught in flagrante delicto.
Second, can any substantial reason be adduced for using the adjectival word ‘alleged’ in situations where the offender remains unidentified? For example, is it sensible to refer to the ‘alleged’ abductor when a person is filmed being taken against their will? Is it not sufficient to say that the person was likely abducted by an abductor? Or is it the case that the qualifying adjective ‘alleged’ communicates the idea that it has not yet been conclusively proven that they were in fact ‘abducted’?
Third, if the crimes are so abhorrent that no penalty imposed can possibly be proportionate to the crime, is it appropriate to preface a reference to the offender with the adjective ‘alleged’? For example, would it be appropriate to refer to Hermann Göring at his trial in Nuremberg as an ‘alleged’ war criminal, even though the world was fully aware of the horrendous and unimaginable crimes committed by that individual?
However, it is ironic that this practice is dispensed with when a person is so hated by some groups in society that they ditch the word ‘alleged’ and proceed to malign that person in the vilest possible, and disgusting, way. This is evidenced by the visit to Australia of the President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, who merely wanted to provide solace to the victims of the Bondi Beach massacre: protesters displayed placards that described him as a genocidal murderer, and not as an ‘alleged’ genocidal murderer.
The term ‘alleged’ is thus applied unevenly, revealing a clear inconsistency in its use. Depending on the circumstances, its use serves as a shield and its absence acts as a sword. Hence, subject to the validity of our point, we should dispense with the word ‘alleged’ in cases where the guilt of a person is abundantly clear and beyond doubt. On the other hand, the adjective may be appropriate when an offender’s guilt is genuinely contested, but in most other cases, its use becomes insincere and even artificial – a real distortion of the facts.
The issue under consideration is important because it impacts on free speech.
Surely, the use of the adjectival term ‘alleged’ is driven by a desire to minimise, even eliminate, possible legal implications, and to refrain from using language that some groups might find offensive. Yet it is in our human nature to speak freely. If someone speaks unwisely, or stupidly, or uses intimidatory and suggestive language, their speech can be excoriated by means of the exercise of the right of free speech by other people. There is thus a marketplace of free exchange of ideas, or freedom of speech, which includes the right of commentators to insist on using the ‘alleged’ language, but others, like the authors of this opinion piece, to have the right to expose the inanity of that language.
It is also noteworthy that the information political leaders want to convey to citizens is never qualified by the adjective ‘alleged’. For example, the European Union (EU) Leaders announced recently that they would advocate for the inclusion of transgender women as a protected group in the United Nations Women’s Conventions. We may find such announcement unpalatable and reprehensible because it treats gender as a social construct and it abrogates the reality that, biologically, there are only two sexes. If the announcement had been qualified with the adjective ‘alleged’ when referring to the ‘transgender women’, then it would have suggested that the gender transitioning issue remains unresolved in scientific circles and has not been definitively settled. But the adjective is hardly ever used if it were to stifle the spread of Woke ideology.
However, the use of the word ‘alleged’ is suitable when talking about ‘alleged’ scientific findings. For example, a group of scientists announced lately that excess deaths might have been caused by the Covid vaccine, and not by the disease itself. But, as this is still regarded by the ‘usual suspects’ as a contested issue, it could be ‘alleged’ that the evidence provided by the scientists is unconvincing and insufficient. Some may argue that there is no distinction between this situation, the ultimate result of which is still uncertain, and that of an accused individual whose guilt remains undetermined and has not yet been convicted. In many cases (though not all), it is relatively quick and straightforward to determine the guilt of an ‘alleged’ offender. In contrast, gaining the expertise needed to comprehend and explain complex scientific ideas often takes a significant amount of time.
When used in reference to criminal acts, the word ‘alleged’ can cause victims to feel doubted, even if strong evidence is presented. This may create obstacles for individuals who want to express their concerns and share factual information. Because the word ‘alleged’ can cast doubt on the commission of a crime, its indiscriminate use may impact how the audience perceives the reality of a situation. We should in such cases use more factual language when reporting certain crimes that are clearly committed by individuals whose criminal behaviour has been properly documented, filmed, or recorded, thus opting instead for the use of words such as ‘described’ and ‘reported’.
Really, the use of the adjectival word ‘alleged’ and the adverbial word ‘allegedly’, in most cases, conflates reality and fiction. It is also noticeably clear that, when applied indiscriminately, the regular use of the word ‘alleged’ potentially compromises the credibility of the information provided, even if the evidence is incontestable due to the existence of compelling evidence. We are sure that this constitutes the act of allegedly distorting an alleged allegation!
