Deaf citizens as jurors in Australian courts: Participating via professional interpreters

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
S. Hale, M. S. Roque, David L. Spencer, Jemina Napier
{"title":"Deaf citizens as jurors in Australian courts: Participating via professional interpreters","authors":"S. Hale, M. S. Roque, David L. Spencer, Jemina Napier","doi":"10.1558/IJSLL.32896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Australian deaf citizens are currently not permitted to perform jury duty, primarily due to their inability to hear the evidence and deliberate without the help of interpreters. Although interpreters are routinely employed to interpret for defendants or witnesses in court, current legal frameworks do not permit interpreters to enter the deliberation room as a ‘thirteenth person’, for fear that they may influence the jurors in their decision-making. Other objections to allowing deaf citizens to act as jurors include uncertainty about their ability to participate fully in the discussions, the impact the deaf juror’s and interpreter’s presence may have on the dynamics of the deliberations and on turn taking, and the logistics and cost involved. Yet, deaf citizens see it as their right to be able to perform this very important civic duty, and recent decisions at the international level indicate that excluding deaf citizens from jury duty should be considered unlawful discrimination. This paper will present results from the analysis of the jury deliberations with one deaf juror and two Auslan interpreters, and from a focus group discussion with the eleven hearing jurors and an interview with the deaf juror about their experience. The jury deliberation is one section of a large-scale study on the participation of deaf jurors in a criminal trial with Auslan interpreters, in New South Wales.","PeriodicalId":43843,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"151-176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/IJSLL.32896","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Australian deaf citizens are currently not permitted to perform jury duty, primarily due to their inability to hear the evidence and deliberate without the help of interpreters. Although interpreters are routinely employed to interpret for defendants or witnesses in court, current legal frameworks do not permit interpreters to enter the deliberation room as a ‘thirteenth person’, for fear that they may influence the jurors in their decision-making. Other objections to allowing deaf citizens to act as jurors include uncertainty about their ability to participate fully in the discussions, the impact the deaf juror’s and interpreter’s presence may have on the dynamics of the deliberations and on turn taking, and the logistics and cost involved. Yet, deaf citizens see it as their right to be able to perform this very important civic duty, and recent decisions at the international level indicate that excluding deaf citizens from jury duty should be considered unlawful discrimination. This paper will present results from the analysis of the jury deliberations with one deaf juror and two Auslan interpreters, and from a focus group discussion with the eleven hearing jurors and an interview with the deaf juror about their experience. The jury deliberation is one section of a large-scale study on the participation of deaf jurors in a criminal trial with Auslan interpreters, in New South Wales.
澳大利亚法庭的聋人陪审员:通过专业口译员参与
澳大利亚的聋人公民目前不允许履行陪审团义务,主要是因为他们在没有口译员的帮助下无法听取证据和进行审议。虽然在法庭上经常雇用口译员为被告或证人进行口译,但目前的法律框架不允许口译员作为"第十三个人"进入审讯室,因为担心他们可能影响陪审员的决策。其他反对允许聋人公民担任陪审员的理由包括:他们是否有能力充分参与讨论,聋人陪审员和翻译的存在可能对审议的动态和轮流产生影响,以及所涉及的后勤和成本。然而,聋人公民认为能够履行这一非常重要的公民义务是他们的权利,最近国际一级的决定表明,不让聋人公民履行陪审义务应被视为非法歧视。本文将介绍由一名聋人陪审员和两名澳大利亚口译员组成的陪审团审议结果的分析,以及与11名听证陪审员的焦点小组讨论和对聋人陪审员的采访的结果。陪审团审议是新南威尔士州一项大规模研究的一部分,该研究是关于聋人陪审员在澳大利亚口译员的刑事审判中的参与情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles on any aspect of forensic language, speech and audio analysis. Founded in 1994 as Forensic Linguistics, the journal changed to its present title in 2003 to reflect a broadening of academic coverage and readership. Subscription to the journal is included in membership of the International Association of Forensic Linguists and the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信