Content-Type: text/shitpost

Thinking on convicted rapist Canaan Banana, I wondered if this description was misleading. It seems to imply that Banana was convicted of rape, which I think is not the case. He was actually convicted of sodomy in connection with the rapes. However, one could argue that

1. he was a rapist
2. he was convicted

and therefore he is a convicted rapist.

This is slightly misleading, but in this case only slightly. But suppose the guy had been acquitted of both rape and sodomy, and then later in a completely unrelated matter, had been convicted of embezzlement? (Or littering?) “Convicted rapist” would seem to be substantively misleading.

Probably some linguist has done their doctoral thesis on this topic. Maybe more than one.