How many are capable of handling languages that have only a few thousand speakers?
Find yourself an online transcript of a trial in a language you don’t speak and feed it through Google Translate or another automatic translator of your choice. You will find that some or most of the text is anywhere from ambiguous to misleading to completely incomprehensible. (And that’s assuming you can even find an automatic translator for that language—none of them are going to support the rare and endangered languages I was thinking of in my OP.)
I don’t know. I’m not advocating-I’m just trying to find out.
How many are able to handle with any subtlety languages with millions of speakers?
During a course in Translation I took a couple of years back, we ran a little exercise similar to what psychonaut proposes, using several different automated translators on texts that we understood, or whose result we should have understood. The best one kept sex-reassigning JL Rodríguez Zapatero’s wife; word order was often wrong; verbs which should be in the subjunctive in Spanish had about a 40% chance of being in it… and that was from English to Spanish. There is no way I’d trust that thing to translate something on which a person’s freedom or life can hang.
Nabbed my text from the previous post, put it through that translator back and forth, once in each direction:
This is the best automated translator I know (Google’s), moving back and forth in the most-translated language pair in the world; suddenly, I’m being taken by a translation course (… I feel… strangely violated…). Now let’s use Armenian, simply because it’s in the list and I wouldn’t even be able to recognize it (I don’t think I’d ever seen its alphabet before):
Back when I was working in the prison system, we had a translation service on call and they had people who spoke pretty much any language you were likely to ever encounter. You called them up, they found you a translator, and you could conduct whatever conversations you needed with them translating everything via speakerphone. It was unwieldy and expensive but it got the job done.
In case you’re having trouble locating or identifying foreign-language transcripts, here are the German transcripts of some of the Nuremberg Trials. Google Translate does a pretty good job most of the time at conveying the general meaning, though it’s still very awkward as words are out of place. But quite often it breaks down almost completely, resulting in nonsense such as the following:
I would not wish for my life or my freedom, nor those of anyone else, to hinge upon an understanding of that goobledygook.
In China, authorities can only detain you for 3 days, and during that time they are required to provide a translator. When I lived there, we were advised that if we were detained for whatever reason, we should try to speak the most obscure language we know to delay as much as possible. I was kind of eager to try it with my Fulfulde.
This is way up-thread, so I apologise, but WHY is this the case? It seems to be a very strange requirement. What happens if the incarcerated person does not speak Japanese at all? Are they not allowed to speak to their lawyer at all? or to have access to a translator to be made aware of the charges against them?
In King County, WA if the court system cannot find a certified translator, they will pay a member of the community who asserts that he is not a certified translator but will try his best to translate to the defendant. I don’t know if there is precedent for NO one being found who could at all communicate with the person though, but this does come up.
I know that they have “Roma day” months in advance so all of the gypsies can know to be in town to handle their court business as well, they really do try their best to make sure everyone can take part in the system.
What about a mute Japanese person, are you allowed to write in Japanese? What if this person cannot read or write well? How are mentally disabled people handled in the court systems?
They have a politician interpret for them.
I happened to be listening to a story on NPR yesterday talking about this topic. A prisoner was released (or maybe getting a new trial - I don’t remember) because an uncertified translator had mistranslated the word “si” (which means both “yes” and “if” in Spanish) during the trial. Instead of saying “If I did it,” he translated a sentence as starting, “Yes, I did it.” Unsurprisingly, the jury convicted.
A bit of legal trivia: Hearings in the New York State prison system have to be officially conducted in English, even if all of the individuals involved speak Spanish. We used to have a hearing officer who spoke Spanish as his native language. But he couldn’t conduct a hearing in Spanish for a prisoner who only spoke Spanish. He had to get another employee to translate everything the prisoner was saying into English and then he would respond in English and the translator would translate it into Spanish for the prisoner.
My understanding is that every OP here is assumed to be serious.
My very first OP was on whether you could breed a turkey with four legs (I like the dark meat best), and the thread was conducted with all due sobriety.
It seems reasonable to have an official language in which all court correspondence is guaranteed to be conducted. The parties to a hearing aren’t the only ones who may need to understand the evidence and procedure. For example, what if the prisoner needs to appeal to a higher court a ruling made on the basis of what was presented at this hearing? What if, during the hearing, one of the court officers suddenly leaves (due to sickness, death, maternity, etc.) and is replaced with one who doesn’t speak Spanish? What if a third party needs to present at their own hearing evidence which was presented at this hearing? How are the court record-keepers supposed to catalogue, index, and abstract hearings and rulings in a multitude of languages? None of these problems are insurmountable—that is, transcripts could be translated if and when the need arises, though I’m expecting the need would arise often enough that it makes sense to conduct the hearing in English in the first place.
Your description is at odds with that provided by other court interpreters in Japan. For example, I found an article and slides presented at a EU conference on legal interpretation by someone who is a professor and (for 23 years) a court interpreter in Japan. The way he describes the system it’s very much what one would expect: interpreters are retained for witnesses, defendants, etc. who do not speak Japanese; they sit in front of the bench and do simultaneous interpretation whenever someone speaks or reads out a document. On the one hand, he laments that he’s given insufficient time to read over the written documents used in the trial, but on the other hand, it seems trials often have a team of two or more interpreters who alternate and/or support each other. He claims that 10% of jury trials are expected to require interpreters.
The article does seem to indicate that it’s not established when the interpreters are actually appointed; presumably they’re always present for the main phase of the trial, but possibly not for the lengthy pretrial proceedings. Perhaps you were asked to interpret at a pretrial hearing, or at a non-criminal trial, where the rules are different…?
I’ve worked in the criminal legal system in the U.S. They absolutely do not let someone go because they do not speak English. They also don’t let you go if you’re declared mentally incompetent to stand trial, they simply hold you in a secure facility until, if ever, you are declared mentally fit.
Where I worked, the courthouse kept a couple of Spanish interpreters on staff. If you spoke something less common, you got to sit in jail until the public defender assigned to you found someone who spoke your language. Often it would be a relative of the accused. The most difficult case was a fellow who only spoke Cambodian (I believe Khmer is the more proper name for the language). He had relatives in town who spoke a bit of English, but not well enough to translate court proceedings. They eventually hired an out of town interpreter, not entirely sure how they found him. Now the state will pay for your interpreter, but if you are found guilty it is very likely that you will be ordered to pay court costs.
I was surprised by the number of people who did believe that if they pretended not to speak English, they would just be let go. More than once, upon being told in English this was not the way things worked, the defendant would miraculously display a previously unknown ability to communicate in English.
Keep in mind, if no one can communicate with you the odds of you getting bail are slim to none. Since most crimes are not as serious as murder, not speaking English is generally just going to keep you sitting in jail longer than is necessary.
In general, any question that asks, "Is this a way to commit a crime with impunity? can be safely answered with a ‘no.’
I believe I know the only exception, and public safety requires me to keep mum.
So how does this practice reconcile itself with the Sixth Amendment, or the more generous rights granted by state laws?