| > Not, though. According to Wikipedia: I would argue that the definition I provided (convicted of a crime AND particularly (but not only) whose sentence is...) is relatively compatible with the definition you cite. I continue that it's my definition I provided and so perhaps I am not the only one whose use of the word differs from Wikipedia. > it is really hard to usefully draw any conclusions other than “person convicted of a felony at some point in their life” which is hardly useful. It is indeed hard to usefully draw any conclusions other than "person convicted of a felony at some point in their life" and I would argue that's the point. If you want more information, then guess what? Felonies are public record and are often available online. Go find it instead of expecting it to be directly told to you. That's kinda creepy though, so perhaps you shouldn't advertise that you know what crimes your neighbors are convicted of. Is it hardly useful? No, it's very useful for specifically legal purposes... which only make distinctions between types of felonies when stating what the felon can or can't do. Can't buy a gun. Can't live within some distance of a school. Must tell others your criminal history. Okay, and it's good to know that someone is required to (not) do some action merely by a word: they're a felon, so they're not allowed to do this or that. That's very useful for legal purposes -- can't sell a gun to this person, can't provide a loan for this person to buy a house at this address, whatever. It's not very useful outside of legal purposes, and it shouldn't be. As long as the person has already gone through the justice workflow, why should it matter what their crime was? |