Linguistic Diversity in Deaf Defendants and Due Process Rights

Abstract

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.

The Psychological Treatment Needs of Deaf Mental Health Patients in High-Secure Settings: A Review of the Literature

“…This may have the effect of inflating the relative proportion of sex offenders in deaf offending populations, as currently evident in the literature. This interpretation has also been argued by other authors (e.g., Miller & Vernon, 2001).…”

“…Some accounts of this finding highlight situational factors such as inadequate service provision in conditions of lower security (Young et al, 2000) and biases in the criminal justice system. For example, only severe crimes leading to entry into the criminal justice system while less serious offenses are ignored (e.g., Hindley et al, 2000;Miller & Vernon, 2001). Other accounts highlight dispositional factors such as the misunderstanding of social norms (Andrews & Conley, 1977) and difficulties in perspective taking (Bachara, Raphael, & Phelan, 1980).…”

“…Very little of the literature on the treatment needs of deaf people discusses needs within secure environments (O'Rourke & Grewer, 2005). One reason for the treatment needs of deaf mentally disordered offenders not being addressed may be as a result of inadequate mental health screening on admission to prisons (Miller & Vernon, 2001;Young et al, 2000).…”

“…The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF; World Health Organization [WHO], 2002) conceptualizes deafness in terms of functioning. This may allow greater room for the Deaf cultural perspective in the way deafness is classified compared Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 01:52 21 October 2014 Harry, 1984;Denmark, 1985;Harry & Dietz, 1985;Vernon & Rich, 1997;Vernon & Greenberg, 1999;Young et al, 2000;Miller & Vernon, 2001;Young et al, 2001;Miller & Vernon, 2003;Iqbal et al, 2004;Miller et al, 2005;Bramley, 2007Mental Health 8 Altshuler & Baroff, 1962Denmark, 1985;Young, et al, 2000;De Bruin & De Graaf, 2004;Iqbal et al, 2004;Cornes & Napier, 2005;Kvam, et al, 2007;Landsberger & Diaz, 2010. Assessment 4 Dickert, 1988Fellinger et al, 2005b;O'Rourke & Grewer, 2005;Connolly et al, 2006.…”

Your Case Will Now Be Heard: Sign Language Interpreters as Problematic Accommodations in Legal Interactions

“…This system is only effective if all the people involved are able to participate fully by becoming familiar with the charges against them, the court, its discourse, and the impact of the adjudication. Without appropriate accommodations, deaf people are not able to participate in such legal proceedings (Miller & Vernon, 2001).…”