R.L.G. at The Economist calls out journalists who condemn criminal suspects by using “alleged” as “their own kind of get-out-of-jail-free card”:
“Alleged bomber”, “alleged murderer” and the like, especially next to someone’s mug shot, so quickly calls to mind the image of the person in question carrying out the act in question—even if this is not not consciously intended by the journalist—that it should be banned from newsrooms. Far better to refer to the “person suspected of guilt in the so-and-so bombing”, leaving the person a person and not yet a “bomber” until the verdict has come. In headlinese, where compression is key, “murder suspect” is preferable to “alleged murderer” (or, just as bad, “suspected murderer”).
A so-called “indicted criminal” has an even stronger complaint than an “alleged criminal”. “Indicted” carries a strong judicial whiff—it is a technical term of criminal procedure—but it means nothing more than formally accused. In New York state, for example, a mere majority of a grand jury can indict by finding only “reasonable cause to believe” that a suspect committed a crime. Grand juries’ proceedings are sealed because nothing has been proved in the adversarial trial process yet. A conviction in the same jurisdiction requires unanimity that the suspect is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”, after evidence is presented in open court. In jurisdictions outside America, a single prosecutor may bring an indictment. So someone called an “indicted war criminal” has every right to complain that he has been found guilty before his trial has even begun.
The Dish 