Deaf people, especially those who are not well educated, are at risk for serious injustices when they enter the criminal justice system. The present study describes these risks at all stages of the legal process, including arrest, trial, probation, prison, and parole. These dangers are greatest for those who are poorly educated, read at a fourth-grade level or lower, have poor communication skills (American Sign Language and English), and lack awareness of their legal rights. Primitive personality disorder (PPD) is the term mental health professionals use to describe this set of characteristics. The risks that the segment of the deaf population with PPD faces when its members run afoul of the law are described, a case history provided, and some relevant legal and interpreting issues are discussed. A case is made for applying the concept of linguistic incompetence to deaf individuals with PPD.
Sign language interpreters in mental health settings face extreme linguistic and cultural difficulties in interpreting basic, everyday language used in these settings. This is particularly true when deaf clients have limited English proficiency, which often requires interpreters to use expansion techniques in order to render messages successfully. To examine how diagnostics may be affected by interpretation, Brauer (1993), Montoya et al. (2001), and Steinberg, Lipton, Eckhardt, Goldstein, and Sullivan (1998) translated two widely used psychological screening instruments into American Sign Language (ASL). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule-IV (DIS-IV) were selected for translation, and data from the three studies are presented and discussed. Their implications in terms of the expectations and stresses placed on interpreters are described within a framework of demand and control theory. Finally, sections of the Code of Ethics of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) are examined relative to both the issue of confidentiality and what the interpreter's contribution should be in mental health settings.
The entire deaf prison population in the state of Texas formed the basis for this research. The linguistic skills of prison inmates were assessed using the following measures: (1) Kannapell's categories of bilingualism, (2) adaptation of the diagnostic criteria for Primitive Personality Disorder, (3) reading scores on the Test of Adult Basic Education, and (4) an evaluation of sign language use and skills by a certified sign language interpreter who had worked with deaf inmates for the past 17 years. Deaf inmates with reading scores below the federal standard for literacy (grade level 2.9) were the group most likely to demonstrate linguistic incompetence to stand trial, meaning that they probably lacked the ability to understand the charges against them and/or were unable to participate in their own defenses. Based on the language abilities and reading scores of this population, up to 50% of deaf state prison inmates may not have received due process throughout their arrest and adjudication. Despite their adjudicative and/or linguistic incompetence, these individuals were convicted in many cases, possibly violating their constitutional rights and their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Previous research suggested an unexplained difference in the patterns of offending behaviors among deaf people when compared to hearing people. This study, conducted in Texas, compares the incidence and types of violent offenses of a deaf prison population in comparison to the hearing prison population. Sixty-four percent of deaf prisoners were incarcerated for violent offenses in comparison to 49% of the overall state prison offender population. This finding is consistent with previous research. The most significant difference between the populations was found in the category of sexual assault, which represented 32.3% of deaf offenders in contrast to 12.3% of hearing state prison inmates overall. Factors potentially impacting violent offending by deaf persons are their vulnerability to child sexual abuse, use of chemicals, educational histories, and development of language and communication skills. Additionally, there is a widespread lack of accessible intervention and treatment services available to deaf sex offenders across the nation.
Historically, ensuring the due process rights of deaf defendants has been a problematic issue in the criminal justice system (McAlister, 1994; Smith, 1994; Vernon & Coley, 1978; Vernon & Greenburg, 1996; Vernon & Miller, in press; Vernon & Raifman, 1997; Whalen, 1981; Wood, 1984). Inadequate communication can radically affect a deaf defendant's interactions in the courtroom. Pursuant to the concepts of fairness enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the specific statutory language contained in federal and state laws, the courts must provide equal access for deaf defendants (Berko, 1992; Gallie & Smith, 2000; McCoy, 1992; Simon, 1994; Vernon & Raifman, 1997). It is the responsibility of the court to ensure that the appropriate accommodation is provided in the language most readily understood by the defendant.When adjudicating a deaf criminal defendant, courts must make certain that the defendant has equal access to various due process activities, such as assisting counsel in the development of a defense, deciding whether to testify, deciding which plea to enter, understanding the charges, understanding one's position as defendant, and comprehending the role of the defense and prosecuting attorneys, and judge (Berko, 1994; King, 1990; Simon, 1994; Smith, 1994; Vernon & Coley, 1978; Vernon & Miller, in press; Vernon, Raifman, & Greenberg, 1996).However, complex linguistic issues that impinge on adjudicative competence are present in some deaf defendants (Vernon & Miller, in press; Vernon & Raifman, 1997). Adjudicative competence refers to an individual's ability to adequately comprehend and participate in legal proceedings and due process activities. When diverse language use is an issue, a deaf defendant's ability to participate in proceedings can be established by the court using the modern test of adjudicative competence (Dusky v. U.S., 1960). This test examines a defendant's state of mind at the time of trial rather than at the time of the offense in terms of these factors: a defendant's capacity to participate, reasonable understanding of the proceedings, and level of cognitive functioning, irrespective of any mental disorder. This article will outline linguistic barriers to due process for deaf defendants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.