The headline on a story about three teenagers who kicked an elderly man to death to steal his mobile phone was

BRAINLESS MINDLESS THUGS

It seems from the article that this phrase was actually used by the judge in his summing up and sentencing.

It occurred to me though that the words are either meant literally or figuratively. If they are meant literally then they are clearly nonsense as the former couldn't could possibly be true and the latter is highly unlikely unless the thugs in question have suffered extreme brain damage.

If on the other hand they are meant figuratively (as is almost certainly the case) then surely they have exactly the same meaning and present us with a tautology.

Can anyone think of a justification for the expression?

I'd say it's used for emphasis.

Before I read arnie's answer, that's what I was thinking, too, Bob.

Alert readers notice that the headline reveals the Judge's failed attempt to produce appropriate pejoratives. "Cruel" and "Vicious" would more accurately describe the scoundrels.

ROBBERY RENDERS VICTIM LIFELESS / PHONELESS

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry thomas,

Indeed it is, but it remains nevertheless a great big, huge, gigantic, enormous, massive, gargantuan tautolgy.

Doesn't it.

That it does. Calling them solipsitic antisocial scoundrels might sound better.