Safe in the Hands of the Interpreter? A Qualitative Study Investigating the Legal Protection of Deaf People Facing the Criminal Justice System in Norway

Abstract

<p>Keywords</p><p>Criminal justice, Deaf, Sign Language, Interpreting, Profession</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Over the last thirty years Deaf people in Norway have obtained extensive rights to sign language interpreting. During this period, a public national interpreting service has been established to cope with the growing demands for interpreters. However, little is known about how this development has influenced interpreting in different contexts. This paper addresses questions concerning the legal protection of deaf people facing the criminal justice system. A central issue of concern is what kind of communicative barriers Deaf people encounter. An empirical study is presented where sixteen strategically recruited informants participated: nine sign language interpreters and seven representatives from the Norwegian criminal justice system. The methodological approach was qualitative, open-ended interviews. The results indicate that Deaf people benefit from the professionalization of the interpreters in many ways. At the same time, as a profession, interpreters have a responsibility for defining their role. It is questionable whether or not interpreters always make professional decisions in deaf people’s best interest.</p>

Sign language interpreting services

“…This 1. So far, there have been publications focusing on interpreting strategies (Leeson and Foley-Cave 2007;Napier 2002), preparation strategies (Nicodemus, Swabey, and Taylor 2014), SLI ethics (Tate and Turner 2002), SLI in different settings such as broadcasting (Stone 2009;Wehrmeyer 2015), conferences (Stone and Russell 2014), healthcare (Nilsson, Turner, Sheikh, and Dean 2013;Leeson, Sheikh, Rozanes, Grehan, and Matthews 2014), education (Antia and Kreimeyer 2001;Kermit and Berge 2018;Marschark, Peterson, and Winston 2005;Ringsø and Agerup 2018;Thoutenhoofd 2005;Winston 2004), legal settings (Kermit, Mjøen, and Olsen 2011;Napier and Haug 2017;Russell 2012), video relay services (Haualand 2011(Haualand , 2012(Haualand , 2014Napier, Skinner, and Turner 2017;Warnicke and Plejert 2012), and for political participation (Turner and Napier 2014). Most of the research mentioned above uses empirical data from specific interpreted events, or from interviews with individual interpreters, clients or professionals.…”

Sign language, translation and rule of law – deaf people's experiences from encounters with the Norwegian criminal justice system

“…As part of the data gathering process, we also carried out a systematic document study of 46 Norwegian case court decisions handed down over the last 10 years, all involving deaf persons. The analysis of this material has been published elsewhere (Kermit, Mjøen, and Olsen 2011;Olsen et al 2010) and will serve as a backdrop for this paper.…”

“…In an earlier article (Kermit, Mjøen, and Olsen 2011), we presented the extensive development of a publicly funded national interpretation service in Norway over the last 15-20 years, and discussed the implications of this development for deaf people. In order to meet the demand for a functional and effective interpretation service, public interpretation services were established by the Norwegian Government in all of Norway's 19 counties during the early and mid-1990s.…”

“…When interviewed, the interpreters formulated the suspicion that professionals working within the criminal justice system had a low awareness of this complexity: 'They think we [the interpreters] speak Norwegian, only with signs', says one interpreter (Kermit, Mjøen, and Olsen 2011;Olsen et al 2010). The results from the interviews with the professionals themselves suggest that even if the accusation is exaggerated, it is not completely unfounded.…”

“…The most prominent area where a lack of competence emerges concerns poorly developed judicial terminology in NSL. As we have discussed elsewhere, terms such as 'witness', 'defendant' and 'judge' exist in NSL, but the formal meaning of such terms is not self-evident (Olsen et al 2010;Kermit, Mjøen, and Olsen 2011). This means that these terms and also the much more specific 'parole' of criminal law must be established between the deaf person and the translator in each particular case, ad hoc during the statement or interrogation or in the court case.…”