Beyond the Headlines: Language and Crime

A two-year-old girl is described as a bride, and a 60-year-old man as her groom. This was the language used in reports of an alleged marriage in Balochistan. But what do these words really convey when the person described as a bride is only two years old? By using the familiar language of marriage, do we risk presenting an incident involving a child as an ordinary social practice? The words we choose to describe such incidents can shape how we understand them and the harm they involve.

A similar question arises in cases of so-called honour killings. When a 17-year-old girl in Peshawar was reportedly killed by her mother following a pregnancy outside wedlock, the term honour killing described the alleged motive. Yet the word honour also reflects the values invoked to justify the killing. What happens when the language used to describe violence echoes the beliefs used to excuse it?

These examples reveal the relationship between language, crime and society. From a criminological perspective, words do more than describe criminal acts. They can shape perceptions of victims, perpetrators and responsibility. Discourse analysis helps us examine how language constructs meaning, reinforces social norms and sometimes obscures the harm caused by violence.

Discourse analysis looks beyond the facts presented and examines how events are framed. The same incident can be described in different ways, each highlighting certain details while leaving others in the background. In crime reporting, the choice of words can influence whether an incident is understood primarily as a crime, a family matter or a cultural practice.

Consider the case of the two-year-old girl. Calling the adult man a groom and the child a bride places the incident within the familiar vocabulary of marriage. Although these terms may reflect how the ceremony was described, they can make an arrangement involving a child appear socially ordinary. The language of marriage may overshadow questions of consent, exploitation and the child’s protection. Describing it as an alleged child marriage, while clearly highlighting the concerns involved, keeps the child’s welfare at the centre.

Family relationships can also shape how violence is understood. Referring to someone as a father or mother is not inherently problematic, but these relationships should not overshadow the conduct being investigated. Family ties may provide context, but they do not diminish the seriousness of alleged criminal conduct.

The language of honour presents another concern. The term honour killing is widely used to describe murders committed in the name of family or community honour. It identifies a particular form of violence, but the emphasis on honour can give the alleged motive more prominence than the victim’s death. It may also reinforce the belief that a family’s reputation is tied to a woman’s behaviour. We must distinguish between explaining a motive and accepting the justification associated with it.

This is where the concept of neutralisation becomes relevant. Neutralisation refers to the ways in which wrongdoing may be justified, excused or presented as less serious. Appeals to tradition, family reputation or honour can serve this purpose. When a woman’s killing is explained as a response to behaviour considered unacceptable by her family, attention may shift from the murder to the victim’s conduct. Questions about why she became pregnant or whether she violated social expectations can overshadow the more fundamental question of why she was killed.

We often see a similar pattern when the term “TikToker” is used to describe a murder victim. Given the negative associations attached to the term in our society, some people may focus on the victim’s social media presence or perceived lifestyle rather than the crime itself. Some may even suggest that she deserved what happened. In this way, attention shifts from the offender’s actions to the victim’s identity, potentially minimising the seriousness of the crime and reinforcing victim-blaming.

This framing can also contribute to stigmatisation. When victims are associated with behaviour that society disapproves of, public attention may shift towards judging them rather than examining the violence committed against them. Such language can reinforce social expectations and divert attention from the responsibility of those who cause harm.

This does not mean that every use of terms such as honour killing or child marriage normalises violence. These expressions have established meanings in legal, academic and human rights discussions. They can identify specific forms of abuse and explain their social context. The concern arises when their use obscures the harm or reinforces the assumptions behind it. The aim should not be to abandon these terms, but to use them carefully and distinguish between describing a practice and legitimising it.

Language is only one part of a much larger problem. Poverty, gender inequality, social pressure, limited education and inadequate enforcement of protective laws can all contribute to the persistence of harmful practices. Changing terminology alone cannot eliminate these conditions, nor does every word necessarily influence every reader in the same way. Examining language is important because it helps us recognise how crime is represented, not because language is the sole cause of violence.

This responsibility does not rest with reporters and writers alone. As readers and members of society, we should question the language through which we encounter violence. We should ask whether a description focuses on the harm suffered by the victim or gives greater prominence to the social expectations allegedly violated. At the same time, we must distinguish between allegations and convictions. Using precise language does not mean disregarding due process or presuming guilt.

Criminal responsibility should not depend on a person’s wealth, social status or influence. A crime should be examined on the basis of the alleged conduct, not the social standing of the person involved. Everyone should be subject to the same standards of accountability. However, precise language also requires us to distinguish between a suspect, an accused person and a convicted offender. Fairness and accountability must go hand in hand.

Addressing these issues requires consistent implementation of existing ethical guidelines and greater awareness of how language shapes perceptions of crime. Media outlets should provide regular training on responsible language use, while universities could introduce subjects such as critical discourse analysis to help students examine how language reinforces stereotypes and social inequalities. These principles should also extend to talk shows and television dramas, which can influence public perceptions of violence.

The government could develop a national policy on responsible communication, focusing on public education and media literacy rather than restricting freedom of expression. Such measures should encourage critical engagement with harmful narratives, protect marginalised communities and help reduce the social disparities that allow discrimination and violence to persist.

Ultimately, examining language is not about policing every word. It is about developing a more critical understanding of how crime is represented. We must be able to discuss culture and tradition without allowing them to become excuses for violence. Family relationships and social expectations should not distract us from the conduct under scrutiny.

The key takeaway is simple: The words we choose should bring the truth of violence into focus, not obscure it, shift blame onto victims or shield perpetrators from accountability.

The writer is a Public Policy scholar.
aiman.zameer98@gmail.com