Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Language corner: Indicted in? Or indicted for?

By Mark Obbie

It's nitpicking time. I used to argue with writers about this all the time. I won, because I was the editor. But I never quite convinced them of my point. Let me try it out here.If I say you were indicted FOR a crime, I am saying that I have decided you did it. The implied rest of the phrase is that you were indicted for committing it -- no question about whether you committed it. Instead, if I say that you were indicted on charges of, or indicted in a crime, or simply indicted, then it means that you are merely accused. You feel me? So The New York Times headline (at least online) on this story from Las Vegas caught my eye: I read that as saying that the official committed fraud and was finally caught. Not good! Others' heds (again, these are the Web versions, which may not be identical in print) got it right:Why is "indicted in" any better? Doesn't it still imply that there was indeed a fraud, but we don't know if the defendant committed it? Yes, I suppose so. But, in the tight confines of headline-writing, I'll take that form of overreaching because it at least does not target an individual. The root of the problem is that indict is a stronger, more dramatic verb than charge. If the Times had written "No. 2 Official in Nevada Charged With Fraud," it lacks the punch -- but also the problems -- of the actual hed. Final question: Do I need to get a life? Yes!

Full post as published by Lawbeat on December 04, 2008 (boomark / email).