What is wrong with this article's title?
 

Woman Formally Charged for Cutting Off Husband's Penis, Could Face Life in Jail
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wife-ch...ry?id=14067331

That "could" is what is wrong. It should say "Will". I am pretty sure if some chiks boobs were cut off and thrown down the disposal, it would say "Will".

Well, since she's charged and a potential penaty IS life in jail, there's no "could" about it.

IMO, one of the worst things that can be done to a bloke - makes me cringe thinking about it - however, those "men" in some countries that mutilate young girls with "female circumcision" deserve it!

It says "could" because she's hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and if she is a sentence would still need to be decided.

Surely this can't be the first time you've seen the phrase "could face" in an article relating to a crime?

I hate to admit it, but bung hole has a point.

Is it because every word starts with a capital?.. Did Snoopy_UK write it?

You capitalise the first letters of words in a title (except minor ones like "a", "and" etc.).

She WILL face life, whether or not she is convicted is another question. There however, is zero question prosecutors will want a life sentence, and "could" presumes otherwise. I guarantee you if it was reversed and a crime against a woman it would say "will" instead. Just a different type of sexism.

Um, what? People only receive a sentence when they've been convicted. This isn't the case here yet.

Prosecutors will seek life. It is known in the US what type of charges and potential penalties one faces before trial. She will face life in prison as a certain penalty for her actions. Thus she "faces life" not she is "convicted for life" which is strangely how you seem to read it.

So what?? Stop trying to back peddle your way out of this one.

I seek for my bank to give me a million quid but I can't see it happening. Besides, your point was that she should get life rather than could get life so your new argument makes no sense at all.

Do you actually understand the difference between someone being "charged" with a crime and being "convicted" of one? It seems not.

oh yeah - http://www.bbc.co.uk/

That's what I was taught at school.

There is no back peddling, Prosecutors will 100% certain seek life in prison. Whether they attain that judgement is a different matter. If it had been a woman who was forcibly circumcised by her husband, the article would say will instead of could. No question.

My argument hasn't changed. It was always about the language and discrepancy between men and women.

No it wouldn't! The wording is the standard format for reporting on someone being charged with a crime. There is no conviction yet, therefore any potential sentence is a "might" and not a "could".

Come on, you're on a wind up aren't you......?

Faces life does not mean convicted, Bungle. It means it is a possible outcome of her situation. It means if she loses at trial, she will then have a life sentence, and would thus be serving life. It means that is the outcome if prosecutors get their way. Nothing more. Not that she is convicted. Just what will happen if she is convicted. It's very meaning seems to be what is eluding you.

She only faces life when she's been convicted and sentenced.

It means it is a possible outcome of her situation. Exactly! So the wording of the title is correct. I don't know why you're even arguing about this.....unless you're on a massive wind up.

It's very meaning seems to be what is eluding you It's not me a meaning's eluding, it's you.

Yea. Even webmasters make mistakes you know, and it looks like whoever does the BBCs pages needs to go learn a bit more about grammar. It's more complex than most people think, there are no one set of rules, but there are commonly accepted principles and styles. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/blink1.gif

No it wouldn't say that if it was reported before it went to trial, the media cannot assume they will be found guilty before the trial has even begun, as that could be seen as affecting the outcome of the trial, hence the ambiguous wording of the original title.

They can't even spell capitalise properly so their opinion is void.

It looks silly and they should stop it.