Interpreters in law enforcement contexts: Practices and experiences according to investigators

Abstract

SummaryInterpreters play an important role in the criminal justice system, yet little is known about the way interpreters are used. This survey of U.S. law enforcement (N = 299) assessed practices and perceptions regarding interpreter use during interviews with nonnative English speakers. Investigators reported using colleagues more often than professional interpreters, using interpreters more often with suspects and in certain crimes (e.g., domestic violence), and that interpreters are usually at least partially informed about case facts prior to translating. Investigators responded to experimental vignettes, and results indicated they were more likely to seek and obtain interpreters when an interviewee has lived in the United States for fewer years; however, the language spoken and the interviewee's role (e.g., witness vs. suspect) did not affect decisions to request an interpreter. Several avenues for future experimental research are identified and discussed, including interpreting over the phone and interpreter susceptibility to biases.

Law enforcement investigation of non-sexual child abuse: Physical abuse, neglect and Abusive Head Trauma

“…After contacting over 2,000 police and sheriff’s departments, the final sample included a diverse array of United States law enforcement professionals ranking from chief of police to polygraph examiner ( N = 388; see Table 1). This recruitment yield is similar to that in previous related studies (e.g., Rivard and Schreiber Compo, 2017; Shaffer and Evans, 2018). A third of the sample reported having been at their current rank for 1–3 years, while 22% reported having been at their current rank for 4–7 years, 10% reported having been at their current rank for 8–10 years and 25% reported to have been at their current rank for over 10 years.…”

“…However, it can be argued that examining the perceptions, beliefs and self-reported practices of law enforcement is equally important. Further, although the response rate is similar to that of related research (e.g., Rivard and Schreiber Compo, 2017;Shaffer and Evans, 2018), the response rate was low, thus limiting how representative the sample is of the population. We also did not collect data regarding the participants' demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) or department size to increase potential participants' comfort with staying anonymous, thus increasing real-world investigators' willingness to participate.…”

Interpreted Police Interviews: A Review of Contemporary Research

“…Second, surveys of investigative interviewing practitioners have been conducted by teams of psychologists in different countries and jurisdictions, some of which have focused on interpreted police interviews (e.g., Shaffer & Evans, 2018 in the USA; Wakefield et al, 2014 in Australia). Although some research teams administered identical surveys in different jurisdictions (e.g., Miller, Redlich, & Kelly, 2018;Redlich, Kelly, & Miller, 2014;Sivasubramaniam & Goodman-Delahunty, 2019), no rigorous jurisdictional comparisons of the outcomes on interpreting have been undertaken.…”

“…

Criminal justice proceedings are high-stakes settings in which native English speakers have difficulty negotiating the legal process, let alone persons with no or limited English proficiency. Increasingly, law enforcement interviewers are required to rely on interpreters (Mulayim & Lai, 2017;Shaffer & Evans, 2018). However, the mere presence of an interpreter does not guarantee accurate interpreting.

…”

Interpreter-Assisted Interviews: Examining Investigators’ and Interpreters’ Views on Their Practice

“…Wilson and Walsh (2019) found that mistrust exists between investigators and interpreters, exemplified in their study through police officers' reluctance either to engage with interpreters in interview planning or (where planning did occur) to discuss their role/s within the interview in a collaborative manner, preferring to focus on each of their individual roles instead. Shaffer and Evans (2018) found, in their survey of US investigators, a preference to use bi-lingual colleagues as interpreters. One source of mistrust appears to be disagreement concerning the specific role of interpreters.…”