What is the legal significance of using multiple synonyms in a legal sentence?

  • Thread starter Swamp Thing
  • Start date
  • #1
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
908
572
Yet the coroner’s report concluded that the patient herself was responsible for her death: “The deceased did kill and slay herself by refusing to eat whilst the balance of her mind was disturbed.”

( https://theamericanscholar.org/the-decreationist/ )

Do the words "kill and "slay" have distinct legal meanings that need to be specified separately?

More generally, you often see several synonyms thrown in together in legal sentences. Is it because of separate precise legal meanings that need to be included, or is it a kind of historical-cultural thing where they felt that it sounded more comprehensive that way?
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Since a coroner is not really someone trained in law, I'm not sure what to make of your particular example. As to the general use of these redundancies in law, I think this is more of a historical-cultural thing. The trend in modern legal writing is to remove these redundancies, which appear frequently in older legal materials. I do not know, but historically there were some strict matters of form that needed to be observed, so I suspect many of these strange writing habits got baked into the proper forms that needed to be observed in courts and legal documents to make them effective.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Swamp Thing
  • #3
Haborix said:
many of these strange writing habits got baked into the proper forms that needed to be observed in courts and legal documents to make them effective
This
 
  • #4
Swamp Thing said:
Do the words "kill and "slay" have distinct legal meanings that need to be specified separately?

More generally, you often see several synonyms thrown in together in legal sentences. Is it because of separate precise legal meanings that need to be included, or is it a kind of historical-cultural thing where they felt that it sounded more comprehensive that way?
Explained here: Legal doublet
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Klystron, Vanadium 50, gmax137 and 8 others
  • #5
Oh God. Why have you done this thing to me. Sent me down a lexical rabbit hole...
Now I MUST KNOW all there is to know about:Legal doublets (eg. cease and desist):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doublet
Irreversible binomials (eg. mac and cheese):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_binomial
Fossil words (eg. dint as in by dint of):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_word
Unpaired words (eg. unkempt):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaired_word

Every article leads to another fascinating article, all the way down...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes gleem, gmax137, Astronuc and 5 others
  • #6
Haborix said:
Since a coroner is not really someone trained in law
In England (and many other places) they are.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (this part of which was in force I believe until 1965) contains the following provision: note the distinction between "kill and murder" and "kill and slay".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/crossheading/homicide/enacted

6 Indictment for Murder or Manslaughter.

In any Indictment for Murder or Manslaughter, or for being an Accessory to any Murder or Manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the Manner in which or the Means by which the Death of the Deceased was caused, but it shall be sufficient in any Indictment for Murder to charge that the Defendant did feloniously, wilfully, and of his Malice aforethought kill and murder the Deceased ; and it shall be sufficient in any Indictment for Manslaughter to charge that the Defendant did feloniously kill and slay the Deceased; and it shall be sufficient in any Indictment against any Accessory to any Murder or Manslaughter to charge the Principal with the Murder or Manslaughter (as the Case may be) in the Manner herein-before specified, and then to charge the Defendant as an Accessory in the Manner heretofore used and accustomed.
I suspect that the coronor used these words because there was no equivalent statutory definition of suicide.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Swamp Thing and Haborix
  • #7
pbuk said:
In England (and many other places) they are.
Ah, you're right. They are trained in the law in a similar sense to how police are trained in the law. I only meant to say they aren't lawyers, so I wouldn't give any weight to the terms they use.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Haborix said:
Ah, you're right. They are trained in the law in a similar sense to how police are trained in the law. I only meant to say they aren't lawyers
No, most coroners in the UK are lawyers and since July 2013 they must be.

Haborix said:
I wouldn't give any weight to the terms they use.
Maybe you wouldn't, but in the UK a coroners words carry a great deal of weight: in England and Wales they are answerable only to the High Court.
 
  • Informative
Likes Haborix and phinds
  • #9
Fascinating! I had assumed the US and UK would be similar. UK coroner's appear to be a combination of U.S. coroner, detective, and prosecutor.
 
  • #10
Tangent on legalese:
I noticed that here in Nevada, the news reports will often say, "the suspect has been charged with open murder in the death of so & so..." I don't think I heard "open murder" before, so I looked it up. Apparently, it allows prosecutors to keep their options open when charging an offender with murder. It enables them to charge the offender with the highest degree of murder, as well as each lesser type of murder, including each alternative theory of murder...
 
  • Informative
Likes Bystander
  • #11
gmax137 said:
It enables them to charge the offender with the highest degree of murder, as well as each lesser type of murder,
In many jurisdictions this is called a "lesser included offense". One can be charged with murder but only be convicted of "unlawful discharge of a firearm".

This has had some very interesting interactions with the constitutional provision against double jeopardy.
 
  • Informative
Likes Bystander

1. What is the purpose of using multiple synonyms in a legal sentence?

The purpose of using multiple synonyms in a legal sentence is to ensure clarity and precision in the language used. This can help prevent ambiguity and confusion, which is especially important in legal documents.

2. Is it necessary to use multiple synonyms in a legal sentence?

No, it is not always necessary to use multiple synonyms in a legal sentence. In some cases, a single term may be sufficient to convey the intended meaning. However, in other cases, using multiple synonyms can provide additional emphasis and specificity.

3. Can using multiple synonyms in a legal sentence affect the interpretation of the sentence?

Yes, using multiple synonyms in a legal sentence can affect the interpretation of the sentence. It can help clarify the meaning of a term or phrase and leave less room for misinterpretation. However, it is important to use synonyms that have similar or identical meanings to avoid confusion.

4. Are there any potential drawbacks to using multiple synonyms in a legal sentence?

One potential drawback of using multiple synonyms in a legal sentence is that it can make the sentence longer and more complex. This may make it more difficult for readers to understand and may also increase the risk of errors or inconsistencies in the document.

5. How should one choose which synonyms to use in a legal sentence?

When choosing which synonyms to use in a legal sentence, it is important to consider the context and intended meaning of the sentence. Synonyms should have similar or identical meanings, and it is generally best to avoid using overly complex or obscure terms. It may also be helpful to consult a legal dictionary for guidance.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Back
Top