Is there some difference in meaning or connotation between exculpate and exonerate?
There are circumstances where they have different meanings. “Exculpatory evidence” is any evidence that might tend to cast doubt on on the guilt on a suspect or defendant. Evidence that exonerates a suspect or defendant is unambiguous – it is more conclusive that the person is not guilty.
For example, for a person accused of rape, a statement by some third person that the defendant was somewhere else at the time is exculpatory. DNA evidence from the semen sample that proves the rapist was not that guy would almost certainly exonerate him.
I agree with Boyo Jim, with the addition that I think “exonerate” usually carries a connotation of post conviction proving of innocence. At least that is how I think it is often used. I think it is also used when some last minute piece of evidence wasn’t known/understood - and then come into play. Just difference of opinion on the guilt of the defendant wouldn’t normally be called exoneration.
Exculpate has a specific legal connotation (maybe exonerate does too - I’m just unfamiliar with it) with Brady vs Maryland being a big case in that area of law.
As Boyo Jim mentions - this can be anything that casts doubt on the guilt of the defendant - even if he is obviously guilty - you can still say that a piece of evidence was exculpatory.
So exculpatory evidence means you find the guy not guilty but exoneratory evidence means you stop the trial and dismiss the charges? In other words, exoneration is the more extreme version of exculpation.
No. Exculpatory is more like “may cast some doubt on guilt.” In the example I gave (the witness statement) the jury might ultimately conclude the witness was mistaken about the time, or that the witness was biased, or simply unreliable. So they might reasonably still convict.
I’m not sure “exoneratory” is a word, or can be stated in the form of an adjective. I’ve always heard it used as a verb. So there’s maybe another difference right there – it’s linguistic form.
“Exonerate” suggests to me that the person accused didn’t do the deed in question, while “exculpate” suggests that the person accused bears no guilt for the deed. If for the example, the deed is “crashing into a schoolbus” an exonerated person wasn’t there when it happened, while an exculpated person was shown to have been having a heart attack just prior to the crash, and thus was not guilty of deliberately (or even negligently) crashing into a schoolbus.
I should say – don’t take me as the final expert. I get me legal learnin’ from Law & Order, where they often discussed the legal requirement of turning over any exculpatory evidence to the defense. And they also argued whether a piece of evidence was exculpatory or not. Jack McCoy got into some trouble more than once IIRC because he didn’t pass over evidence the judge later decided should have been passed along.
I don’t believe this is usually how people use it. If the person wasn’t there when it happened - he would only be “exonerated” if he was actually accused of being there in the first place.
I believe the way it is normally used is a PERSON is “exonerated”. This usually isn’t used for someone just being found not guilty. OJ Simpson wasn’t exonerated - neither was Casey Anthony (although their supporters may claim they were - this is hyperbole). One could argue that Richard Jewell and that guy recently arrested for the Ricin attack were exonerated - but normally you would think more along the Central Park Five.
EVIDENCE can exculpatory. I haven’t heard in normal use people referring to an exculpated person (it is however part of the dictionary definition). This normally is used in what is termed Brady violations. If the prosecution possesses evidence that casts doubt on the guilt of the defendant - they are required to turn it over. This could be a witness who said they saw someone else commit a robbery. Or a description that doesn’t match the defendant. Even if the have DNA evidence and a confession - the evidence that casts doubt on the guilt of the defendant is exculpatory.
Also, I’m not sure if exonerated can be used before “convicted” or maybe “charged”. Exonerated means it clears someone of a charge or a verdict of guilt that was already delivered (I think). I don’t know that it would be appropriate to use the term for someone who was a suspect at some point, but never charged.
I was trying to avoid the issue of comparing two different forms of the same root word. I figure if exculpatory is the adjective form of the verb exculpate (or the noun exculpation), then exoneratory is an acceptable adjective form of exonerate or exoneration.
Okay, so several ideas have been offered.
The intensity theory: Exonerate is a more intense form of exculpate. If you offer evidence that exculpates somebody, it suggests they are innocent. If you offer evidence that exonerates somebody, it proves they are innocent.
The time theory: The difference between exculpate and exonerate is when they are done. You exculpate somebody before the decision of their guilt is made so that they won’t be found guilty. You exonerate somebody after they were found guilty so the guilty verdict will be overturned.
The direction theory: Exculpate and exonerate are the same process just considered from two different points of view. A person is exonerated by evidence which exculpates him. It’s like the lexicographer and his wife.
The innocence theory: The difference between exculpate and exonerate is the difference between two different types of innocence. If you’re exonerated, it’s shown that you did not commit the act of a crime. If you’re exculpated, it’s shown that you may have committed the act but you were not guilty of a crime.
Are you looking for a legal definition or a literary one? Because there is also the ‘verb’ versus ‘adjective’ theory.
And keep in mind that these summaries you offer are not mutually exclusive.
I don’t think you can quite grasp the nuances of the meanings as they as normally used by getting what amounts to definitions. These words are against differently. Exculpatory is a specific legal term - used to describe evidence. There is case law on it and any criminal lawyer will be familiar with it.
I am no legal expert, but AFAIK - exonerate isn’t used as much in the legal sense. There may be some legal definition somewhere - but there isn’t much of a point. If someone is exonerated - the legal process is over. It has little use in the law - while exculpatory pretty much means what cases like Brady et. al say it means. People are free to use it however they want, but the legal system will use it in accordance with case law. People aren’t found to be “exonerated” (to the best of my knowledge).
I think exonerate is more open to interpretation than exculpatory.
Some words just aren’t used certain ways - even if they are defined as such. I’m going to go of on a tangent here and give the example of the English word “meet”. On several occasions I have had people who spoke perfectly good English (but not their native language) say to me:
“It was nice to meet you.”
Problem is - I have known these people for years when they said it. In English - we don’t normally say “nice to meet you” once you have met someone for the first time. Is it like that in the dictionary? I don’t think so. Why do we do that - I don’t know. I can meet my friend for lunch - but I won’t say “nice to meet you” unless it’s the first time meeting. Apparently it isn’t this way in either German or Hebrew - as in both cases they seemed to not get what they had said wrong (and it was hard for me to explain it [and I knew they were the types of people that would want to know])
Anyway - sorry to go off on a tangent, but I think the words have subtle meanings that are hard to grasp with just descriptions.
Except there are actually legal processes to go through to achieve exoneration. Primarily appeals and pardons, though exoneration is one of the less likely outcomes. More likely is that a guilty verdict will be overturned and the prosecution then decides whether to retry the case.
Yes, and not to beat a dead horse here, but you are talking about the post conviction use of the term exonerate - which is how Wikipedia uses it, but others that aren’t convicted - or even charged can be “exonerated” as well - if suspicion falls heavily upon them.
While Wikipedia refers to exoneration as:
BUT - They have also used it in cases like Richard Jewell - who wasn’t even charged:
Also - IMHO - if the State is able to retry an individual - I wouldn’t consider them exonerated (at least not at that point)- but that may just be my interpretation of the word.
Curiosity mostly. I’m just trying to figure out if there’s a standard by which you can determine which word is more correct in a given situation or if they are virtually interchangeable.
I think there is something to each of these theories and that context plays an important part in deciding which aspect of the definition is being used.
In the phrase “exculpatory evidence” Exculpatory evidence - Wikipedia the direction theory is in play, while in this article aa version of the innocence theory (though not the example I originally provided) is supported http://www.lectlaw.com/mjl/cl041.htm
“Exculpation is the act of being cleared of blame, and excuse and justification are the most common criminal defenses that achieve this. In the the criminal law system of the United States, excuse and justification are most commonly employed in affirmative defenses that provide rationale for finding the defendant not guilty, even though he committed an actus reus, possessed the necessary state of mind, and caused the damage to society that would normally constitute a criminal offense. The exculpation of guilt - in situations where it is justified or excusable - is considered to be more desirable to society than the rote prosecution of specific crimes.”
Here’s the official difference from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms (a great book for picking apart nuances):
"Exculpate, absolve, exonerate, acquit, vindicate mean to free from a charge or burden.
Exculpate implies simply a clearing from blame, often in a matter of small importance <directly Harding was blameless for what was going on. Indirectly he cannot be wholly exculpated–S. H. Adams>
…
Exonerate implies relief, often in a moral sense, from what is regarded as a load or burden … In general exonerate more frequently suggests such relief from a definite charge that not even the suspicion of wrongdoing remains <exonerate a person charged with theft>."
From Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage:
which in turn says:
From these entries, we can see that the words are, in fact, very different, and that in legal usage, at least, the MWDoS has it backwards - a person may be exonerated by a legal process without being exculpated in the eyes of the public. I agree with MW, though, with respect to common usage.
Maybe not super helpful, but to add to Nametag’s post, etymologically looking at it, exON(us)erate would mean to “take away the weight/burden” while exCULP(a)ate would mean to “relieve of guilt”.