Many state and local courts don't provide interpreters

Post Reply New Topic

This impacts the ability of people to assert their constitutional rights in court:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-an ... ice-denied

If you're a citizen of a country, you should speak the language fluently (assuming you aren't disabled in some way).

What does this have to do with the right to an adequate defense?

If you don't speak the language of the land (but are capable of), you really don't deserve special treatment, such as interpreters.

Fantastic. How many Native American languages are you fluent in?

That's not an argument, as the natives in this context don't run the civilization anymore (it's aboriginal in my case). The language of the land = what the voted upon language is.

The native language for my civilization is English.

If I were to be tried in another civilization that has a different language I don't know, then I'm not going to complain if I get a shoddy interpreter, or even one at all. I had no good reason to be there in the first place; it's not my home, and it's selfish of me to expect special treatment. If I'm somehow a citizen of that alien civilization, then it's my fault that I don't speak the language of the land, and I shouldn't feel entitled for special privilege.

Australian aboriginals are allowed interpreters in courts...

They aren't capable of it, so they do need interpreters. It isn't special treatment at all.

I'd agree with this in most situations, but in a courtroom scenario, a hospital, or other exceptional circumstances where people's lives or livlihoods are at stake, I'd beg to differ.

This is not a good argument.

Tribal sovereignty is limited but not nonexistent and you can't just pretend the "domestic dependent nations" don't exist.

In addition to this, the US is a federal system, not a centralized fascist state with an official language. There are many States and local court jurisdictions with majority or large minority non English speaking populations.

At a Federal level: 28 U.S. Code § 1827 - Interpreters in courts of the United States

Local and state rules vary but may not violate Rights provided for in the constitution.

A sample of State provisions dealing with this issue.
Massachusetts:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/selfhelp/lan ... -services/
New York:
https://www.nycourts.gov/courtinterpreter/
Texas:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /GV.57.htm
California:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/languageaccess.htm
Kansas:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=182
Florida:
http://www.flcourts.org/resources-and-s ... reter.stml
Colorado:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administ ... nterpusers
Washington:
https://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_interpret/

People who speak languages other than English are not necessarily members of an "alien civilization."

The argument for an English only system, on the other hand, does seem to come from an alien perspective: one that cares nothing for the founding principles on which the United States is based and that are set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The Sixth Amendment has interesting language and is worth rereading from time to time and the 14th Amendment is also worth a look.

When did the United States of America vote to establish English as the "language of the land"?

Who voted? Was it a popular referendum? A vote in the House of Representatives? In the Senate? How many votes in favor? How many voted against?

They're given special treatment, yes.

In their case, I figure it's fair, as they were "displaced" and they naturally didn't/don't speak English.

Whereas say, someone coming here from another country today, doesn't deserve special treatment. They might get it, but I don't think they deserve it.

My argument is what people should expect. It's not "fascist", rather it's not being a burden without just cause. The law can provide whatever the people want for whomever, and that's not my point.

To me, I'm not going to complain that I'm not given special treatment because I don't respect the host nation enough to learn the official languages. Official language = what the majority speak and always have.

It'd be selfish and self-entitled of me to complain without a just reason, such as a learning disability.

If I can learn English, then most people can.

Dillogic,

Complain? What has gotten up with Trumpers and other people like you? We're talking about threats to a person's life and livelihood here! This isn't some trip to Disney World. If the State is going to prosecute someone and threaten to put them in jail or execute them, then the defendant's rights must be upheld, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And that includes the 6th amendment right to confront one's accusers and understand the nature of the charges against oneself. If the person can't understand it in English, then the only way to let them understand would be for them to do so in their native language, and that is what a well-trained, certified interpreter is hired to do.

I can't abide this fashion for heartlessness and playing fast and loose with the Constitution for some groups of people that pervades one side of the political aisle these days. I really hope Clinton gets a landslide and the Democrats come to control Congress with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That would really send a message.

I have no heart for someone that can't be bothered learning the language/languages that the court system uses when they have the ability to. If enough people do care, then they can get special treatment.

Again, I'm not going to blame say, Indonesia, for not providing an interpreter, if I broke a law over there; I should have prepared for this outcome before going. If they provide one, then that's more than I'd ask for.

I think people should be responsible for their own defense if they're physically able to. Learning the language of the court system is that. A government shouldn't be your mommy and daddy.

If it's illegal in the US for the state to deny free interpreters, then call your local Federal representative and let them know. Let them know about all of those state infringements on the 2nd while you're at it.

(I'm not a "Trumper", and that has nothing to do with this.)

Not even the average native English speaker can navigate the court system by themselves, and in fact not even an attorney who is on trial should try going it alone in their own case. (Thus the aphorism, "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.") So that the defense can present its side and balance the prosecutor's side, it is imperative that defendants have adequate representation, and relevant to this thread the ability to participate fully in their own defense.

Otherwise, you get lots of crap like what the Innocence Project documents, innocent people spending often years in prison for crimes they didn't commit:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

As for learning a language, I am going to bet that you have never had to learn a second language to fluency as an adult, otherwise you wouldn't be talking like this. A combination of biological and social factors make mastering a second language more difficult as you get older. It sure as heck is not realistic to expect someone who has trouble using the language already to learn it to the level of a lawyer while they're waiting for trial, probably while sitting in a jail cell all that time.

Can you understand these words, or do we need to find a certified Trump-ese interpreter for you?