I often see law enforcement agencies refer to someone that most people would think of as a suspect as a person of interest instead. Why did this term come about? I would think a person of interest is someone like the nosy neighbor who happened to be looking out her window when the person across the street was murdered, or maybe a waiter who was serving a bunch of mafiosos who overheard something while they were dining. Why use the term for someone like the spouse of a person who looks like they got killed in a situation of domestic abuse and is now missing?
It probably depends on the jurisdiction, but over here calling someone a “suspect” might be held to be prejudicing a future trial, and/or harmful to the interests of someone later clearly exonerated. We’ve had one or two horrendous “trial by media” cases, even without the use of the word “suspect”. The usual phrases here - so usual that people probably still interpret them prejudicially anyway - are “the police are anxious to interview…” (when someone’s gone on the run) and “helping police with their enquiries” (when they’ve got someone in the police station).
Political correctness.
A person of interest could be a suspect, but it could also be a potential witness. In some cases the police may not want the suspect to know he’s a suspect, or even that they have one.
In my experience ( and I often have reason to talk to police officers about this very issue) , it refers to someone the police are interested in talking to for whatever reason. Maybe they’re a suspect, maybe the police believe the person is a witness, or maybe the police believe the person has information that they want. Could be any of them , it’s meant to be non-specific. The problem is that since it may mean “suspect”, people tend to assume it *always *means suspect.
In certain crimes, being called a “suspect” could completely ruin a persons life- they could lose their job, their wife, their freinds, and get beat up just becuase. Altho even the “person of interest” label can be bad.
That’s my understanding. A suspect is always a person of interest, but a person of interest isn’t always a suspect.
Or, it could be degrees. “We think this person (of interest) might be somehow connected to the case, but we’re not sure in what way.”. It could just be someone who knows the actual suspect, but who isn’t a suspect themselves.
Exactly the opposite. The reverse to the pejorative way some people use political correctness as a slur for ideological reasons, “Person of interest” is a technical term of art that covers the situation without connotations. The equivalent would be, say, “force” in physics, which is a technical term having a specific and limited use, totally unlike the way force is used in society.
In what possible way? There is nothing “politically incorrect” about referring to or calling someone a suspect in a crime.
At any rate, “person of interest” casts a wider net and has a broader meaning than “suspect.” It can be someone who may have some knowledge of the crime. Like during the Las Vegas shooting, I remember the shooter’s wife being “a person of interest” as the news reports started coming out (so much so that some people thought she actually was the main suspect. This is why we use phrases like “person of interest.”)
edited
No.
Yes. Sometimes you don’t want them to know they are a suspect. Other times they have no idea what their involvement might be. For instance the girlfriend of the Las Vegas shooter was a person of interest. They did not know what her involvement was if any. So far it appears she had no involvement.
Just to add, the phrase pre-dates the term political correctness. I always saw it as a CYA term designed by lawyers.
If you just wanted to question a witness, calling him a suspect is a libel suit waiting to happen.
The line between provider of useful info, witness, co-conspirator, and suspect can be pretty fuzzy even after the case is fully prepped for trial. When the police are first getting their arms around what the heck happened with who, it’s nice to have a generic term for all the above.
But even without her having any actual involvement, she could tell police like when she last saw him and where, and maybe recall past conversations where he was grumbling about those damn country music fans, or maybe say that he ran up a large charge on her last credit card statement and didn’t tell her what it was for, or whatever. And all of those pieces of information would be very valuable to the police. Hence, she’s a “person of interest”.
Nothing to do with so-called “political correctness,” though.
Moderator Note
Clothahump, keep the political potshots out of General Questions. No warning issued.
If you disagree with this note, open a new thread in ATMB. Do not dispute moderation here.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think it’s more of a “potential suspect”. They haven’t risen to the level of suspect yet, but police want to talk to them to see if they should escalate them to suspect status. I haven’t seen that term used to refer to witnesses.
I have. Lots of times the cops interview the person of interest, and send them on their way. Sometimes the cops themselves haven’t decided if the person was a witness, an accessory, or a co-conspirator until after they hear the person’s story and decide if it makes sense.
And of course, interviewing someone as a witness and telling them they are free to go doesn’t preclude charging them with a crime later. That was Lieutenant Columbo’s favorite tactic.
The police have a jargon, just as other linquistic communitees do. And the words are selected and used slightly differently than other people would do: that’s jargon.
But of course Political Correctness is one part of the development of the jargon: the police are public servents, answerable to a bureaucracy, which is answerable to ellected officials. They get into trouble if their bosses are embarrassed by the media, just like they get into trouble if their bosses are embarrassed by criticism from the courts