"Prosecution" defined, part 2

On Nov 22, 9:54 am, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 8:15 am, Meano.Cu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> OP asks about prosecution in a civil court. Prosecution refers to the
> >> proferring of criminal charges; one sues in a civil court. Prosecution
> >> leads to prison; civil suit leads to writing a check.
>
> > That's the way the word "prosecution" is most commonly used, but not
> > exclusively, so I don't think OP is technically wrong to say
> > "prosecuted in civil court." 
>
> If you wish to split hairs here, Mike, I'll split along with you. Here
> the OP asks why the one doing the act can't be prosecuted in civil
> court. The OP does not ask if the case can be prosecuted, but the person.
>
> I think usage would be correct to say cases are prosecuted in civil
> court (moved forward) but people are prosecuted (have charges levied)
> only in criminal court.

OK, Paul, you and Meanu are both right, and I missed that the subject of OP's verb "prosecuted" was the person, not the case.  OP's phrasing struck me as odd the first time I read it but not as technically incorrect, and I was just trying to backfill and figure out why that was.

But since hairsplitting is the favorite sport on Usenet, please allow me to split yours even farther, and cite a lexicographical authority we probably all can agree is authoritative.   Merriam-Webster's website defines the word "prosecute" as follows:

Main Entry:
    pros·e·cute Listen to the pronunciation of prosecute
Pronunciation:
    \'prä-si-?kyüt\
Function:
    verb
Inflected Form(s):
    pros·e·cut·ed; pros·e·cut·ing
Etymology:
    Middle English, from Latin prosecutus, past participle of prosequi to pursue — more at pursue
Date:
    15th century

transitive verb1: to follow to the end : pursue until finished <was…ordered to prosecute the war with…vigor — Marjory S. Douglas>2: to engage in : perform3 a: to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law <prosecuted them for fraud> b: to institute legal proceedings with reference to <prosecute a claim>intransitive verb: to institute and carry on a legal suit or prosecution
— pros·e·cut·able Listen to the pronunciation of prosecutable \?prä-s?-'kyü-t?-b?l\ adjective

It appears all 3 of us (you, me, and Meanu) now agree OP was using "prosecuted" in the sense meant by definition 3(a), to prosecute a person, whereas my response to Meanu's post assumed (incorrectly) that OP was using it in the sense of 3(b), to prosecute a case.   But, lo and behold, 3(a) itself is not exclusively limited to _criminal_ prosecutions, and the example the M-W lexicographers give can be used to refer either to a civil or criminal prosecution: fraud.  And by the actual definition, the word can be used to refer to the act of bringing a legal action against [a person] _either_ for redress [i.e. a suit to recover money damages] _or_ punishment, of a crime _or_ [other] violation of law [such as a tort].

Yes, I know, using the word with the person of the defendant (not the subject matter of the case) as subject of the verb, when one intends to refer to pursuing a civil suit for money damages, would be a very uncommon usage, but at least according to M-W, not an incorrect one either.   And indeed, doesn't a civil plaintiff literally prosecute (i.e. go after, pursue) a civil defendant when he sues that person?

Isn't splitting hairs fun?

Anyway, getting back to my original post where I ignored the unusual usage, I did _not_ try to split hairs then, just to answer the question I thought OP was asking.   Sometimes (if a post is not completely incompreshensible) I like to give foax the benefit of the doubt.

> My sense of the OP was that the poster didn't understand why no criminal
> charges were placed upon the one who assumed the false identity.
> Further, the OP was confused about how the courts work and that there
> are distinct sides, criminal and civil.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with that as the most likely explanation.  But then I'm still puzzled about what she meant by "civil" court if it was not meant in contrast to "criminal" court.   In various contexts, the antonym of "civil" as an adjective modifying "law" is not simply "criminal" but could also be "uncivil", "military", "common", or "religious" among others I didn't think of yet.

Maybe she wanted to know why the nasty mom had not been pursued in a "polite" (civil, as opposed to uncivil) court instead of, as so far seems to be the case, only through the vigilante efforts of the victim's family, neighbors and bloggers to harass her and her family, destroying their property and pressuring them to move away.   In fact, the man-made system of laws, and the civil (that word again) society it makes possible, exist precisely to provide a rules-based, fair and balanced system for deciding disputes and resolving competing interests, as a substitute for the brutal natural "laws" -- might makes right, survival of the fittest, unfettered whim of the king, frex -- which govern in more benighted times and places, and to prevent ordinary citizens from taking the law into their own hands out of frustration and lack of confidence in the court system to ever give them a fair shake.  That's one possible interpretation.

Another possible interpretation, if OP was of a religious bent, is maybe she was wondering if the nasty mom would ever be made to account for her actions in a secular, earthly, "civil" (as opposed to religious) court, confident nevertheless that she would ultimately get her comeuppance when she appeared before the Pearly Gates and had to answer for her actions to the Heavenly court.

In any event, it never occurred to me in my original post on this thread to chastise her for her awkward verbal usage.

Happy turkey day, everyone.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300