So today’s news is that the Germanwings co-pilot “practiced” his crash maneuver on an earlier flight, several times setting the altitude heading to 100 feet and then back again to the regular flight level. He apparently set it so and left it on the return leg.
Anyway, more than one news story says that Lubetube or Lubdub or whatever his name is “is accused of flying the airliner into the Alps.”
Somehow that clangs on my language interpreter. Can a dead person be “accused” of something? So is Pontius Pilate “accused” of sending Jesus to his death? Or is Hitler “accused” of being nice to his dog?
It is typical cautious language. It has not been absolutely proven that he did it, though all the existing evidence points that way. Media are very careful not to call a person a criminal unless they have been duly convicted, up to that point they are the “suspected” or “accused” criminal. Libel can be brought by a person’s survivors if they feel harmed, and while the publication would probably not lose such a case, but it would probably waste them some gelt.
Not sure if “accused” would be the right word, but can’t crimes be attributed to dead people? There’s no doubt that the 9/11 hijackers, dead as they are, hijacked the planes and committed murder-suicide, no?
A court in Greece just tried and sentenced a dead guy. He’s got a six month suspended sentence. I guess if he re-offends again, they’ll put his zombified corpse in jail.
As for the OP, I think I’d used “it has been claimed” or “it has been suggested” rather than “he’s been accused,” but I don’t think accused is wrong.
Are you sure about the last? In some judicial systems, while for logistic reasons a person can’t be sent to jail while dead, it is possible to have other penalties for which other parties would be responsible - for example, the family or an organization to which the person belonged may have to pay fines, compensate for damages, etc. I don’t know whether the specific fora involved in this case would have that kind of situation or not.
In the 9th century, yeah. But it’s not like it was based on precedent or any real legal basis. And it has to be noted that it didn’t end well for the one who came up with that stunt.
Most stories use “suspected,” which seems to fit the situation better. “Accused” has an implication of being able to answer, I think, which is why it clanks here.
Civil penalties, sure. But you can’t levy criminal penalties against peoples’ families, and corporate culpability is a fiction where the corporation is on trial for the principal’s actions, not the principal himself.
But in the civil law system, there isn’t the strict division between civil and criminal matters as in the common law system. A private individual can apply to participate in a criminal case in some systems, and seek civil damages if the accused is found guilt.
I think the first time I heard of that process was a trial in France - maybe a war crimes trial against a former Nazi soldier?
Another exception is that if the statement is published which while on the face of it is defamatory to a dead person can be seen by reasonable people to refer to a still living person.
LIke, “The late Father Brown was a boy buggers, all priests who have ever served in this Parish have been”.
But that’s two separate statements. I get what you mean, but I have trouble constructing an example that would stand - either it addresses and defames a living person, or it doesn’t, no matter how it’s connected to a deader.