Legal Protection of Deaf Persons Who Have Committed Crimes - Assignment Example

Name: Tutor: Title: A study on the legal protection of Deaf persons who have committed crimes Institution: Date: Abstract This study investigates the level of legal protection of deaf individuals facing criminal justice system. The question of legal protection for deaf people in regard to interpretation is a question involving situations where deaf people face hearing professionals in the criminal justice system. Studies indicate that there is no single law covering merely deaf and hard hearing individuals but instead there are several laws that tackle deafness and hard-hearing as a disability and some of the laws are considered to be more important than others. Due to communication barriers, interpreters are necessary but this does not imply that this guarantees the deaf defendants fully legal protection. The research method in is qualitative, open-ended personal interviews with people with diverse professional backgrounds in addition to individual experiences allied to the study topic. The interviews were conducted using semi-structured research interviews. The study results indicate that the presence of interpreters does not guarantee that the police or the courts as well as their deaf defendants or witnesses bridge the linguistic and cultural barriers that might be in existent. A study on the legal protection of Deaf persons who have committed crimes Introduction Legal protection refers to the protection of a person from arbitrary actions from the government or other authorities and in a broader sense it means that people facing criminal justice system are given an opportunity to defend their rights and that they are not denied the chance to participate with their court case and have the probability of submitting an appeal in addition to having their case re-examined. This ideology is both a perfect and a concrete guideline in numerous elements of the criminal system within liberal democracies in UK. Nonetheless, this principal is at times of little value and help to people in susceptible conditions if not combined with comprehensive routine for guidance and support (George 2008). For people encountering communications barriers, legal protection means the right to be taken seriously when bringing charges, the right to be met in a comprehensive manner as well as the prospect that the local representatives of the government make sure that interpreters are accessible any time they are needed. Generally, people with disabilities are the most susceptible to both violence and abuse as compared to the general population. More importantly, some researches imply that cases of abuse entailing deaf children are reported at a lower rate as compared to the reported abuse level of the general population (Gilgun 2006). To my knowledge, the criminal justice lacks or has few deaf police officer, deaf prosecutors, deaf lawyers, deaf juries or any other deaf professional. Therefore, the question of legal protection for deaf people in regard to interpretation is a question involving situations where deaf people face hearing professionals in the criminal justice system. This study seeks to tackle questions allied to legal protection of deaf individuals who are facing criminal justice system as offenders, witnesses or defendants. This paper will therefore analyze and discuss the outcomes of interviews with criminal justice representatives as well as interview an interpreter. Literature review According to Hjort (2008) deaf individuals in UK have obtained legal rights to interpretation, which currently is a fairly unlimited principle. To some extent, the government covers interpretation. The government recruits interpreters as civil servants and the public interpreters make their independent decisions regarding the interpreter who is supposed to be allotted a specific case. This implies that when the police or any criminal justice representative requires a sign language interpreter they basically depend on the interpreters. Ernst (2005) further notes that the role of an interpreter within inclusive educational conditions is a crutch that makes it inaccessible a deeper examination of the circumstances of social segregation through making the interpretation practice appear efficient, precisely through several professional undertakings that constitute the practice (Gilgun 2006). Research indicates that there is no single law covering merely deaf and hard hearing individuals but instead there are several laws that tackle deafness and hard-hearing as a disability and some of the laws are considered to be more important than others. Existing resources for deaf and hard-hearing individuals wishing to research on their legal rights allied to matters like employment, and places of public accommodation consist of law centers, websites, discussion lists and such. However, as Gilgun (2006) indicates, the development of a functional sign language interpreting service for deaf individuals within UK has greatly improved. The deaf individuals have the legal right to an interpreter but not enough research has been conducted to investigate what such changes mean to the deaf individuals (Ernst 2005). When a dynamic understating of the communication process is practical, the supposed challenges that face interpreters turn out to be extremely demanding. If the dialogue involves a certain language and cultural context with unique terms or a domain language, and the equivalent domain is not similarly knowledgeable in the second language or culture, it turns to be extremely complex to negotiate the exact meaning of an utterance via an interpreter. To contend with such a challenge within a communication setting whereby not all the participants are utilizing similar language, for example within the criminal justice system, one can be forced to organize the communication in a manner that it will take account of all parties. It might be essential to change the practice and the epithet of the process. Nonetheless, getting an interpreter can be perceived as the solution when several individual lacks a common language, and changing one’s normal practices might appear uncalled for as soon as the interpreter is availed. Research questions The research question underlying this research is devised as follows: With numerous rights to interpreters for deaf individuals within London and provided that the government provides public interpreting services, in what ways do such factors impact sign language interpretation in regard to criminal justice system? Research Methodology The key method that was used in this research is qualitative, open-ended personal interviews with people with diverse professional backgrounds in addition to individual experiences allied to the study topic. The interviews were conducted using semi-structured research interviews. Recording of the interviews was done and then transcription and analysis was done. The analysis of the material was done on numerous topics with bearing to legal protection according to (Yin 1994). The qualitative approach was combined with document analysis of several recent court case decisions, where deaf persons were involved. Texts from these documents were imported into Nvivo, which is a qualitative study software and then analysis of the texts was carried out just like for the interviews. The court cases were chosen basing on search on keywords like deaf, sign language and other several comparable words within the data base covering most of the criminal court case decisions. The data includes interviews with two representatives of the London criminal justice system and the representatives have a long professional career in criminal justice system. Both representatives had personal experience with cases dealing with deaf defendants and their experience cannot be termed, nonetheless as widespread. Additionally, one sign interpreter was interviewed and he had education as a sign language interpreter and as expected had a personal experience from interpreting situations, for example police interrogations, reporting to police, and interpretation in courts (Ernst 2005). Results The experience of the interpreter working in the criminal justice system The interpreter described his preparations as well as behavior in court and police station indicated that interpreters normally cooperate with other professionals within criminal justice system. Nonetheless, the interpreter indicated that they are not wholly involved in the entire process. For example, during case preparations as well as case documentations, the interpreters are rarely involved. Basically, the interpreters are the ones who always have to request to take part in the process although according to the interpreter, interpreters’ requests are rarely declined. Such factors appeared to have an influence concerning the way interpreters chose to work during police or court interpretations. The interpreter stated that he was not afraid of interrupting proceeding if there was any need to seek clarification or if there was something hampering his ability to work efficiently during a court case or police interrogations. The interpreter confirmed to me that he was a professional and he seemed to be very confident in his role (George 2008). However, the interpreter stated that being a sign language interpreter was a hard task when translating juridical terms. In addition, the interpreter described the way deaf people he had come across at the police station or during a court case were not always individuals with a firm lingual grip on domains that other people undervalue. The interpreter was not entirely clear if he always informed other professionals within the criminal justice system all incidences. This indicates that there may be communication gaps that many interpreters cannot fill and more importantly an interpreter might create the notion that the cultural and social distance between the hearing and the deaf individuals are not as high are they are in reality (George 2008). When the interpreter was asked regarding this, he replied “There are a number of things that individuals with hearing capacity are supposed to have known, both regarding deaf individuals generally, as well as regarding participating deaf in particular. But is it my responsibility to inform them this?” The interpreter also confirmed that he was often worried concerning some things. One of the things is that other professionals within the criminal justice system in several instances underestimate the many complexities within the process of translation and therefore rarely attempt to modify their routine way of working. Again, the interpreter also claimed that the other professionals within the criminal justice system do not have the required knowledge to comprehend what it means to be a deaf person and signing. According to the interviewed interpreter, “the individuals with hearing ability perceive sign language just like the normal spoken language in UK”. In this case, the interpreter addressed the incongruity between what they regularly would perceive they understood regarding deaf defendants or witnesses and what they would deem that other professionals within the criminal justice system comprehended. Still, the interpreter felt that it is hard to engage actively in order to reduce the perceived gap between the deaf individuals and professionals working in the criminal justice system (George 2008). Criminal justice system representatives (police) The two policemen who were interviewed acknowledged that the legal protection of deaf individuals was a crucial matter and needed to be addressed wholly. Both of them expressed that it was recommendable for all police officers when interviewing the deaf people to be audio or video recorded. In addition, they stated that their encounters working with interpreters as well as the interpreting services and acknowledged the significance of professional help to the interpreters. In general, the two police officers acknowledged that most of the interpreters they had worked with were professionals and were always confident of them concerning their skills as sign language interpreters. The police officers further regarding the sign language interpreters as being competent and organized and that they are always ready to disrupt the proceeding and request for clarification if need be. According to the two police officers who were interviewed, this indicates that the sign language interpreters are confident in their task (Patrick 2009). Additionally, the representatives added that working with the interpreters is a common thing in the criminal justice system. The police and courts every year spend a lot of funds in paying the interpreters within many different languages. In this regard, making use of spoken language interpreters, the two police officers expressed concern that working with the sign language interpreters can at times involve risks and impediments that can present high risks to the legal safety. Nevertheless, such concerns were attributed to the cases where the police officers or other professionals within the criminal justice system had previously worked with interpreters to a lesser level. Still, the two police men recognized that concerns regarding communication challenges as well as possible impediments are not a great problem within the cases that involve deaf people. Quite the opposite, the aspect of the interpreters’ professionalism was that the interviewed police officers felt that they could perform their tasks without being concerned with the interpretation (Patrick 2009). Discussion of the results From the results, it is clear that the presence of interpreters does not guarantee that the police or the courts as well as their deaf defendants or witnesses bridge the linguistic and cultural barriers that might be in existent. In contrast, keeping with their practice, the interpreters may even be contributing to the constant under-communication of the hindrances deaf individuals may be facing, even with the presence of the interpreters. Communicative practices within the courtrooms might, therefore, be maintained the way they are. An apparently efficient interpreting service renders the efforts and presence of the interpreters more or less invisible to the other professionals in the criminal justice system (Creswell 2006). The professional interpreting service may therefore be contributing to uphold a given form of communicative practice that has a number of flaws. Apart from the interpreters, the other professionals within the criminal justice system may be in a position to understand that they can carry on normally, and the interpreters will interrupt them and ask again, in case anything is hard to comprehend or if other complexities take place. This is not something that the other professionals within the justice system may be in a position to perceive as problematic. On the contrary, the interpreters acknowledge that this can be extremely problematic to the deaf people facing criminal justice system since they are the one with the responsibility of bridging the linguistic and cultural gaps (Creswell 2006). Furthermore, the results also illustrate that the translation of juridical terms can force deaf people facing criminal justice system to drum up any bilingual and bicultural capacity they have for them to be able to participate in the negotiations. It is realistic to conclude that some deaf persons can face insuperable hindrances in such an instance. One, the interpreter admitted that at time they do not comprehend everything that is said and that it is not all the time that they request for clarifications. Again, the interpreter also stated that some deaf individuals facing criminal justice system are barely competent when it comes to bilingual and bicultural settings (Patrick 2009). Even though the interpreter who was interviewed stated that he can make some proposals to other professionals in the criminal justice system to try and enhance communication, the interpreter highlighted that the interpreters are rarely involved in the process and in most cases they are limited to making suggesting. Accordingly, when the communication happens to be lower than optimal, the interpreters to some level can be deemed to be taking professional responsibility of defining what is adequately functional for the deaf people facing criminal justice system (Robert 2004). Conclusion In conclusion, if the entire criminal justice system can entirely recognize deaf individuals, this would lead to cooperation with interpreters as well as a significant change within practice. Even though deaf persons are not sentenced wrongly, their legal right may be breached if they are denied the opportunity of taking part fully in issues concerning them. Does this imply that deaf persons face the interpreter not merely for helping them in alleviating hindrances but also as a hindrance within its own right? When interpreting of crimes, committed by deaf people, this is not perceived as an effortless conveying of utterances, but as a professional practice, this topic can be argued clearly. PART B Essay A Qualitative research over quantitative research Introduction Qualitative research makes use of comprehensive descriptions and it draws its inductive procedure on analysis resulting from data gathered through data collection techniques like interviews, observations, videotapes and such. As a result qualitative research does not require statistical methods of investigation and analyzing of social phenomena unlike quantitative research which is about systematic empirical research of social phenomena using statistical, mathematical or computational techniques (George 2008). Basically, qualitative research has several advantages over quantitative research. Methods of collecting the data which include descriptive, inductive as well as unobtrusive techniques are easy to use. During a qualitative research, a researcher depends on data collected basing on a client’s issues in regard to the specific environment. A qualitative researcher looks into every case individually, and does not impose pre-conceived ideas and there is no generalization of all study subjects having the same problem since each study participant is interviewed independently. Moreover, during a qualitative research, it is possible to maintain field notes as well as any document that was used during the research. Qualitative research method is also very useful in study of complex human systems like companies, cases, communities, social problems and many other aspects because through a qualitative research the researcher is able to gain and understand the dynamic procedure, meanings, communication patterns, experiences as well as individual constructions of reality (Miller 2006). Moreover, qualitative research method has advantages of flexibility, in-depth analysis in addition to the research being in a position to observe various elements of a social situation or the study topic. A qualitative researcher carrying out a face-to-face interview can fast modify the schedule of the interview in case the interviewees indicate that they require more probes, additional time or lines of investigation within future interviews (Warren 2009). Additionally, through development and use of research questions on spot, a researcher using qualitative methodology is able to gain more deep understanding of the beliefs, attitudes as well as situation of the respondent. During an interview or an observation, the researcher is also able to note any changes of the interviewee in regard to moods, expression and any other environmental aspect that can affect the responses of the interviewee. Such observational information is extremely important. Furthermore, the interviewees can ask for clarification if they do not understand the information and hence the validity of the research is likely to be high (George 2008). In conclusion, however, qualitative research method has its disadvantages which include that the since the study is subjective and deals with a small sample size, prediction is impossible. Moreover, a qualitative research does not always give definitive results and hence in most cases the results do not provide definitive conclusions but merely adequate information to base decision making. Additionally, a qualitative research requires trained moderates and an untrained moderator is likely to diminish the success of the research (Miller 2006). Essay B Ethical Issues Introduction Subjective nature of data collection and analysis during a qualitative research results to many ethical dilemmas and also this method is allied to confidentiality issues as compared to quantitative research method. Additionally, even though it is the responsibility of the researcher to maintain confidentiality during a research, there have been a number of cases where the research information has been subpoenaed. Additionally, an ethical dilemma can result since the topic being researched on is a taboo subject on the study topic impinges on strong social interest or analyses personal values of the study participant (Miller 2006). Basically, during my research, most ethical issues resulted from several study aspects. The first ethical dilemma was how to present the study. I had first wanted to focus the research on crimes involving children who are involved in various criminal activities and end up facing juvenile criminal justice system. The study institution did not allow this and hence I opted for my current research topic (George 2008). Additionally, in the current study topic, I had hoped I would be able to interview a deaf person facing criminal justice system but this was equally impossible and thus I settled to interview the interpreter and the police officers who had an experience in dealing with a deaf person facing criminal justice system. Another ethical issue was identified during the planning phase of the study, namely that the study topic treated criminals and criminal justice system professionals as different from the more general principles of good practice instead of being part of them and that such a controversial study topic would hinder accessing a criminal justice system institution and interview study participants. To do away with problems of gaining consent and actual access to the institution and to build trust, I approached the head of the institution separately regarding the study and eventually also approached the three study participants separately and negotiated with each directly. In regard to the intricacy allied to accessing the interview participants, the decision on when to carry out interviews was very important. Approaching people to be involved in the study is easy after establishing trust. As a result, potential interview participants were contacted after I had made several visits to the institution and I was regular there and by then, the potential study participants had progressively grown to accept my presence. As a result, gaining the consent from the institution’s head to a formal interview was easy as well as building rapport with the study interviewees (Karger 2006). The last ethical issue was the question of how data was to be recorded was also a problem. This is specifically a dilemma during field work since the conventional notepad of the ethnographer can be somehow intrusive and end up creating mistrust with the study participants (Karger 2006). In this, in order to decrease the visibility of note taking and also develop a trustful relationship with my three study participants, I made a decision of foregoing a notepad as well as record notes and I could quickly record notes following an event through memorizing. Bibliography Creswell, J., 2006, Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions, SAGE Publications. Ernst, T., 2005, The Sign Language Interpreter in Inclusive Education. Power of authority and limits of objectivism, St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester. George. N., 2008, The Criminal Justice System and Mental Retardation: Defendants and Victims, Brookes, Baltimore. George, T., 2008, Qualitative Studies, Sage Publications, London. Gilgun, J., 2006, Hand into glove: The grounded theory approach and social work practice: Qualitative research in social work, Columbia University Press, New York. Karger, H., 2006, Science, research, and social work: Who controls the profession? Journal of Social Work, Vol. 28/5. Miller, M., 2006, Reliability and validity in qualitative research, Sage Publications, London. Patrick, K., 2009, Deaf or deaf? Questioning alleged antinomies in the bioethical discourses on cochlear implantation and suggesting an alternative approach to d/Deafness. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Vol. 11/2. Robert, K., 2004, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Warren, W., 2009, The mathematical theory of communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana. APPENDIX RESEARCH BUDGET Transport costs………………………………… 150      Materials………………………………………. $ 60 Printing…………………………………………$ 20 Other: Statistical Consultation/Data Analyses…. $50 Total……………………………………………. $ 280 INTERVIEW NOTES Deaf offenders have trouble communicating with anyone but themselves Deaf individuals facing criminal justice system are barely competent when it comes to bilingual and bicultural settings Deaf people benefit from interpreters in several ways Interpreter dealt with Deaf people several times Police officers rarely handled deaf people Interpreter had personal experiences in interpretation Read More