convict of / convict for

< Previous | Next >

Wookie

Senior Member
Korea, Korean
The jury convicted hiim of a felony.
The jury convicted him for a felony.

Are these both correct? If so, do they mean the same?
 
  • catinhat

    Senior Member
    South Africa, English & Afrikaans
    If I have it right, you use "of" before the name of the crime and "for" before the action.

    A felony is the name used for serious crimes. Therefore you should say "The jury convicted him of a felony".

    You could expand the sentence to say why he was convicted of a felony: "The jury convicted him of a felony for killing his mother".
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    Yes. You are convicted of a charge but for a criminal action - the criminal action causes the conviction.

    "The jury convicted him of the murder [of his wife"].
    "The jury convicted him [of murder] for murdering his wife" -> for verbing = because of/as a result of one's verbing
     

    eno2

    Senior Member
    Dutch-Flemish
    Thanks, PaulQ.

    I'm struggling for the moment with convict/sentence/condemn and their possibilities as synonyms.

    My translation dictionary says 'to convict' is about the guilt.

    So juries would do just that then...convict.

    I don't know...
     

    london calling

    Senior Member
    UK English
    As I said, I was mistaken. Juries can indeed convict someone.

    Oxford:

    Declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.

    ‘the theives were convicted of the robbery’

    Merriam-Webster:

    : to find or prove to be guilty
    The jury convicted them of fraud.

    2: to convince of error or sinfulness

    intransitive verb

    : to find a defendant guilty
    Remarkably, two of the jurors boldly dug in their heels and pressed to convict.— John Grisham
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    My translation dictionary says 'to convict' is about the guilt.
    So juries would do just that then...convict.
    Well, yes - when the foreman of the jury says "Guilty", instantly, the prisoner is convicted.

    OED
    convict: To prove (a person) guilty of an offence which makes him liable to legal punishment; spec. to find or declare guilty, after trial before a legal tribunal, by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge.

    To convict is closely related to the verb "to convince"
     

    eno2

    Senior Member
    Dutch-Flemish
    OK that's clear then as for 'to convict'.
    Sorry london calling, I thought wrongly you were being ironic with 'Apparently I'm mistaken':oops:.
     
    Last edited:

    pob14

    Senior Member
    American English
    As a matter of everyday conversation, “the jury convicted him” is fine.

    In legal terminology in the US, the jury’s verdict does not automatically result in a conviction. For certain offenses (minor drug offenses, misdemeanors by someone with no prior record), the judge has sentencing options which do not result in a judgment of conviction.

    So, speaking technically and US only, a jury never convicts anyone. That is a judgment, and can only be entered by a judge.
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    the judge has sentencing options which do not result in a judgment of conviction.
    In the UK, an "absolute discharge" is possible in which the defendant is convicted but released without incarceration or fine (there are certain financial charges that might be made and other administrative restrictions). However, the process is such that a judge has no power over a person unless they are found guilty, i.e. convicted.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top