Justice for All? Issues Faced by Linguistic Minorities and Border Patrol Agents during Interpreted Arraignment Interviews

Abstract

Reports about judicial misunderstandings of the interpreting process are common (Berk-Seligson 2008;Morris 2010;Hale 2011a). The misconception that interpreters 'just translate' from one language to another by swapping individual words from language A to language B in a mechanical, uncomplicated way, is still prevalent among some legal professionals. Research into court interpreting, however, has highlighted the complexities involved in attempting to achieve a pragmatically accurate rendition in conditions that are usually less than adequate (Hale 2004;Mikkelson 2008;Hale & Stern 2011). In order for court interpreting to be successful, all parties must be aware of its challenges and share the responsibility for effective communication (Ozolins & Hale 2009). This chapter will describe the contents and structure of a workshop designed and delivered by the author to Australian magistrates, judges and tribunal members on how to work effectively with interpreters, for over ten years. It will further discuss the positive concrete outcomes achieved through the raising of awareness among the judiciary about the importance of interpreters in the legal system. ResumenVarios autores han escrito sobre la falta de entendimiento del personal judicial en cuanto al proceso de la interpretación en diferentes países del mundo (Berk-Seligson 2008; Morris 2010; Hale 2011a). El concepto erróneo de que los intérpretes 'sólo traducen' de un idioma a otro mediante el canje de palabras individuales de la lengua A a la lengua B de una manera mecánica y sin complicaciones aún prevalece entre algunos. La investigación sobre la interpretación judicial, sin embargo, ha puesto de (Hale 2004;Mikkelson 2008;Hale & Stern 2011). A fin de lograr una comunicación eficaz por medio del intérprete, todas las partes deben ser conscientes de los retos que esto supone y han de aceptar la asunción de parte de la responsabilidad que dicha interacción implica (Ozolins & Hale 2009). Este capítulo describirá el contenido y la estructura de un taller diseñado e impartido por la autora durante más de diez años a jueces, magistrados y demás personal judicial de Australia sobre cómo trabajar con intérpretes de un modo eficaz. Se discutirán, además, los resultados positivos logrados a través de la toma de conciencia en el poder judicial de la importancia de los intérpretes en el sistema jurídico.Keywords: Working with interpreters. Judges. Magistrates. Tribunal members. Raising awareness of interpreting issues.Palabras clave: Trabajo con intérpretes. Jueces. Magistrados. Miembros del tribunal. Toma de conciencia del papel de la interpretación.

Court Interpreters and the Political Economy of Bail in Three Arraignment Courts

“…Insofar as an LEP person and their interpreter make for a harder‐to‐process object in the “assembly line” of pretrial hearings (Maynard 1983), courtroom actors may impose rules more forcefully and give less attention to individual circumstances. These observations are in line with other work showing that the participation of service providers and other outsiders alters court proceedings, but they provide a more detailed account of impacts in terms of process and consequence for a specific subgroup of defendants (Davis et al 2004; Castellano 2011; Hannah‐Moffat and Maurutto 2012; Aliverti and Seoighe 2017; Angelleli 2015; Angermeyer 2015).…”

“…Angermeyer (2015) further shows that boundary‐making by interpreters is embedded in their use of first and third‐person pronouns (“ I understand the nature of the charges” vs. “ He understands the nature of the charges”) and that these strategies often depend on case and source characteristics (Berk‐Seligson 1990). These and other studies consistently report that when there are overlapping exchanges, interpreters typically translate what the person in highest authority says, often omitting comments by LEP people of lesser courtroom status (Angelelli 2015; Aliverti and Seoighe 2017).…”

“…Interpretation strains court processing. Staff members need to request this service ahead of time, judges must check credentials and modify oral interventions (Berk‐Seligson 1990), and glitches with microphones and remote connections distort communication (Angelelli 2015; Hale and Napier 2016). The physical position of interpreters in the courtroom also influences what they hear and what they see as well as how other actors read these exchanges (Chang 2008; Resnik and Curtis 2011; Angermeyer 2015).…”

Assessing spoken-language educational interpreting: Measuring up and measuring right

“…Kotzé (2014:128) argues that the role of the interpreter -particularly in educational interpreting -is ill-defined. Following on from work done by Angelelli (2015), Kotzé contends that perceptions, both among interpreters and users, influence the role the interpreter will play or is expected to play during any communicative interaction (Kotzé 2016:784) and refers to the need for "sanctioned and agreed-upon conventions" (Kotzé 2014:129). Particularly in her arguments relating to role, she echoes arguments made by Hale (cited in Svongoro and Kadenge 2015:50) about the ease with which interpreter performance can be influenced very strongly by externalities if the interpreters do not have clarity about their role.…”

Introduction to Court Interpreting

“…These guidelines include a set of best practices for the transcription and translation of communications recorded during criminal investigations, which are known as forensic transcription and translation (FTT) and are regarded as a very challenging and fast growing area of legal interpreting. Chapter 8 is entirely devoted to Remote Interpreting (RI), discussing its various con gurations and applications in legal settings and summarising the main ndings of recent studies conducted in Europe (AVIDICUS, 2016), the U.S. (Angelelli, 2015) and Australia (Napier, 2012) on how this mode of interpreting a ects the perceived quality of interaction and working conditions in police interviews and court proceedings. The chapter also gives useful technical recommendations for the equipment to be used in telephone and videoconferencing and stresses the need for speci c training of both interpreters and law enforcement o cers to ensure best results.…”