Poor use of language - Admittance of guilt?

PermaChanged · 2 Jun 2011 at 10:46

Just a quick one,

Could poor use of language and grammatical errors be used to prove someone guilty of something, even though they in their minds are saying they are innocent?

Recently in Guernsey a man was convicted for one count of rape, and two counts of attempted rape. His DNA was all over the place and he later admitted guilt in court so it's a shut case now, but I was curious because, when questioned about the rape, he said "I didn't rape no one" could that be used to help convict him?

nas · 2 Jun 2011 at 10:48

no, because the courts construe whats said and look at intention.

Wyrdo · 2 Jun 2011 at 10:48

No, that's just the way he talks?

nas · 2 Jun 2011 at 10:50

Wyrdo said:
No, that's just the way he talks?

its more to do with being a grammar nazi.

if x says ''I didn't rape no one'', it actually means x raped someone.

Wyrdo · 2 Jun 2011 at 10:55

I know that, but that's not going to convict the guy is it?

Greenlizard0 · 2 Jun 2011 at 10:57

No, because thankfully the courts aren't internet forums where pedantry supersedes obvious intent and meaning from statements.

spudbynight · 2 Jun 2011 at 10:59

As others have said the courts won't convict based on the incorrect use of the English language.

Although it is more than pedantry.

Participant · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:01

Here it is folks, most idiots are rapists!

Greenlizard0 · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:01

Aye, it's almost desperate scraping the bottom of the barrel for something to argue with.

Robbie G said:
Here it is folks, most idiots are rapists!

Of course they are, what kind of loser gets caught - and doesn't shout out "surprise!!" first of all? :rolleyes:

Cosimo · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:11

No. The courts rely on evidence unlike forums where anything goes.

Greenlizard0 · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:15

simulatorman said:
No. The courts rely on evidence unlike forums where anything goes.

I hear you're quite the rapist.

scorza · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:16

nas said:
no, because the courts construe whats said and look at intention.

What is the intention behind "Let him have it"?

I agree that "I didn't rape no-one" wouldn't be enough but other examples of mis-speaking could be used against you.

danza · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:18

But imagine the guy's frustration if he was actually trying to confess. Only after a few English language classes was he able to tell them the truth.

nas · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:18

scorza said:
What is the intention behind "Let him have it"?

I agree that "I didn't rape no-one" wouldn't be enough but other examples of mis-speaking could be used against you.

you need both elements for interpretation, i.e. my first post, there's a film called let him have it on this very issue IIRC

I didnt rape no one is less ambiguous than 'let him have it' so it all depends on circs

cm1179 · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:18

Rusty_Noob said:
His DNA was all over the place and he later admitted guilt in court so it's a shut case now

that'll be what helped to convict him

PermaChanged · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:24

cm1179 said:
that'll be what helped to convict him

Elementary

div0 · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:29

Defendant: 'I didn't do nuffink'

Judge: Your use of a double negative leads me to believe that you did in fact do something, I therefore sentence you to life. Take him away.

This thread cannot be serious, surely?

And if the judge thought you were deliberately trying to avoid answering the question, or were trying to mislead the jury with double negatives, then you'd be asked to clarify your answer.

Tikkabhuna · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:30

scorza said:
What is the intention behind "Let him have it"?

I agree that "I didn't rape no-one" wouldn't be enough but other examples of mis-speaking could be used against you.

Intent isn't used to convict someone. They use evidence the physical act of him doing it (actus reus) and the mental side of him knowing what he was doing (mens rea). Intent, I believe, would then change what sentence the person receives.

Wiki those two things in brackets to get a better idea, my summary isn't that good.

Edit: I do realise I have missed the point of this thread completely.

Disco Boy · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:33

I once got off for something at junior school by telling the absolute truth saying "i didn't do nothing" just shows that I was a devious pedant even then

nas · 2 Jun 2011 at 11:37

Tikkabhuna said:
Intent isn't used to convict someone. They use evidence the physical act of him doing it (actus reus) and the mental side of him knowing what he was doing (mens rea). Intent, I believe, would then change what sentence the person receives.

Wiki those two things in brackets to get a better idea, my summary isn't that good.

Edit: I do realise I have missed the point of this thread completely.

correct