{"title":"挪威刑事司法系统中的准入障碍","authors":"P. Kermit, Terje Olsen","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190093167.013.41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter presents and discusses barriers that Deaf people who have Norwegian Sign Language as their first language face in encounters with the Norwegian criminal justice system. Since this system is based exclusively on spoken language, and mainly depends on the individual law professional’s ability to establish critical, self-reflective practices in each case, Deaf people’s legal safety, as demanded by the rule of law, cannot be taken for granted. Establishing a public, independent, professionalized sign language interpreter service in Norway, however, has helped to reduce risks for Deaf people. Independent interpreters can demand changes in the criminal justice system’s practices, thus making these practices more accessible to Deaf people. Empirical examples illustrating the interaction between Deaf people, law professionals, and interpreters are presented and analyzed. This interaction is less characterized by conflict and more by cooperation and mutual recognition, where both Deaf people and law professionals state their confidence and trust in their interpreters. The chapter concludes that structural change and organization, such as the establishment of an independent public interpreter service in Norway, trump general and well-meant inclusive intentions in organizations such as the Norwegian criminal justice system when it comes to secure Deaf peoples’ rights and the prevention of miscarriage of justice.","PeriodicalId":127198,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Disability","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers to Access in the Norwegian Criminal Justice System\",\"authors\":\"P. Kermit, Terje Olsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190093167.013.41\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter presents and discusses barriers that Deaf people who have Norwegian Sign Language as their first language face in encounters with the Norwegian criminal justice system. Since this system is based exclusively on spoken language, and mainly depends on the individual law professional’s ability to establish critical, self-reflective practices in each case, Deaf people’s legal safety, as demanded by the rule of law, cannot be taken for granted. Establishing a public, independent, professionalized sign language interpreter service in Norway, however, has helped to reduce risks for Deaf people. Independent interpreters can demand changes in the criminal justice system’s practices, thus making these practices more accessible to Deaf people. Empirical examples illustrating the interaction between Deaf people, law professionals, and interpreters are presented and analyzed. This interaction is less characterized by conflict and more by cooperation and mutual recognition, where both Deaf people and law professionals state their confidence and trust in their interpreters. The chapter concludes that structural change and organization, such as the establishment of an independent public interpreter service in Norway, trump general and well-meant inclusive intentions in organizations such as the Norwegian criminal justice system when it comes to secure Deaf peoples’ rights and the prevention of miscarriage of justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":127198,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Disability\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Disability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190093167.013.41\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Disability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190093167.013.41","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Barriers to Access in the Norwegian Criminal Justice System
This chapter presents and discusses barriers that Deaf people who have Norwegian Sign Language as their first language face in encounters with the Norwegian criminal justice system. Since this system is based exclusively on spoken language, and mainly depends on the individual law professional’s ability to establish critical, self-reflective practices in each case, Deaf people’s legal safety, as demanded by the rule of law, cannot be taken for granted. Establishing a public, independent, professionalized sign language interpreter service in Norway, however, has helped to reduce risks for Deaf people. Independent interpreters can demand changes in the criminal justice system’s practices, thus making these practices more accessible to Deaf people. Empirical examples illustrating the interaction between Deaf people, law professionals, and interpreters are presented and analyzed. This interaction is less characterized by conflict and more by cooperation and mutual recognition, where both Deaf people and law professionals state their confidence and trust in their interpreters. The chapter concludes that structural change and organization, such as the establishment of an independent public interpreter service in Norway, trump general and well-meant inclusive intentions in organizations such as the Norwegian criminal justice system when it comes to secure Deaf peoples’ rights and the prevention of miscarriage of justice.