Hispanics are not only the largest language minority in the United States, but also in U.S. prisons. An increasing number of primarily Spanish-speaking defendants face the legal and linguistic challenges of a U.S. courtroom. Constitutional and statutory protections have been put in place to guarantee that non-native English defendants have access to a court interpreter during their trial. Yet, under these protections it is left to the presiding judge to determine whether a court interpreter is truly needed. Thus, the judge has to determine if the comprehension of the non-native English defendant is sufficiently inhibited as to require language assistance during trial.
What methods do judges use in order to determine the English proficiency of a primarily Spanish-speaking defendant? How good does the English of a non-native English defendant have to be in order to stand trial without an interpreter? Are the language needs of Hispanics truly an issue in U.S. courts? Would guidelines on how to determine English language proficiency facilitate the judges work? In order to answer these questions, one hundred surveys were sent to federal and state criminal court judges in four states (CA, FL, NY, TX).
The analysis of the responses returned by the judges showed that language issues of Hispanics are an important issue in U.S. courts. In addition, the answers provided by the judges revealed that non-native English defendants must be able to understand broadly, or everything that is said at trial, and that they must be able to answer questions in whole sentences in order to be able to stand trial without an interpreter. With regard to methods that judges use in order to determine the English proficiency of a non-native English defendant, the data showed that most judges choose to appoint an interpreter, if one is requested by the defendant. Also, many judges ask the defendant directly whether he/she needs an interpreter. As most judges responded that the request by the defendant is sufficient for him/her to receive an interpreter, they do not agree that a set of guidelines to determine the English proficiency of the defendant would facilitate their work.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LSU/oai:etd.lsu.edu:etd-04142005-224929 |
| Date | 15 April 2005 |
| Creators | Radmann, Jana Anette |
| Contributors | Arnulfo Ramirez, Margaret Parker, Jorge Arbujas |
| Publisher | LSU |
| Source Sets | Louisiana State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04142005-224929/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached herein a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to LSU or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below and in appropriate University policies, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds