Can speakers of rare languages commit crimes with impunity?

[Peanuthead]

This situation reminds me of an old I Love Lucy episode:

LUCY GETS ARRESTED IN PARIS

[Isamu]

@psychonaut

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.

Sage Rat was not talking about interpreting during court proceedings in Japan (which can be bad enough anyway - “I couldn’t take a bath for two years” said by a mother whose daughter’s body was found sliced up in a bathtub, being interpreted into Japanese as “I cannot take back the two years".)

He was talking about interpreting for people who are incarcerated pending investigation or trial. In Japan you can be incarcerated easily for 23 days without being charged. Sometimes the incarcerated individual will be allowed to talk to family or others, in which case they can only talk in Japanese so that what is said can be monitored by investigators.

[Emtar_KronJonDerSohn]

I thought for sure you were asking specifically abou this case.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/04/16/20120416liberian-parents-still-not-ready-stand-trial.html

[grude]

@Leo_Bloom

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.

Well if he had just asked what happens when the defendant speaks a rare language sure, thinking he found a loophole that allows one to commit serious crime without being charged…

Incidentally the article I found mentions that for minor crimes judges sometimes do dismiss the case, if the alternative is say flying an interpreter across the world.

[SecretaryofEvil]

@psychonaut

So how does this practice reconcile itself with the Sixth Amendment, or the more generous rights granted by state laws?

Because the state is, presumably, perfectly ready and willing to try him within a reasonable time period. It is the defendant who is not ready and is delaying the trial. There are a shit ton of good reasons for delaying a trial, that’s why things called continuances exist.

[psychonaut]

@SecretaryofEvil

Because the state is, presumably, perfectly ready and willing to try him within a reasonable time period. It is the defendant who is not ready and is delaying the trial.

Where the law names the state as the entity responsible for providing the interpreter, how could they say it’s the defendant who’s delaying the trial?

[TokyoBayer]

@Isamu

Sage Rat was not talking about interpreting during court proceedings in Japan (which can be bad enough anyway - “I couldn’t take a bath for two years” said by a mother whose daughter’s body was found sliced up in a bathtub, being interpreted into Japanese as “I cannot take back the two years".)

From the linked article

One way of guaranteeing it may be to introduce the official structure of qualifying the interpreters-translators and of recruiting and training them to a higher grade.

which is a polite way of saying that the current system sucks.

[Northern_Piper]

@psychonaut

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.

None of these issues stops courts in Canada from operating in two official languages. All criminal courts, anywhere in Canada, have to have the institutional capacity to run a trial in either English or French; all appellate courts have to have the capacity to hear appeals in either language; and the Federal Courts and the courts in some provinces do the same in civil matters.

[TonySinclair]

@Sage_Rat

In the case of Japan, if you can’t speak Japanese, then you’re out of luck.

That’s just crazy. Maybe not as crazy as blurring the genitals in their porn, but crazy.

[psychonaut]

@Northern_Piper

None of these issues stops courts in Canada from operating in two official languages. All criminal courts, anywhere in Canada, have to have the institutional capacity to run a trial in either English or French; all appellate courts have to have the capacity to hear appeals in either language; and the Federal Courts and the courts in some provinces do the same in civil matters.

Yeah, but my arguments still hold—I didn’t mean to say that it was impossible to have more than one official language; I was saying that some language (or languages) need to be designated as official, because record-keeping would become a nightmare if you allow courts to conduct business in any arbitrary language those involved happen to speak.

[SecretaryofEvil]

@psychonaut

Where the law names the state as the entity responsible for providing the interpreter, how could they say it’s the defendant who’s delaying the trial?

Believe it or not, our justice system is not designed to be easily exploited by silly loopholes. The accused has a right to a speedy trial, but the judge can agree to continue the trial for a wide variety of practical reasons that are in the interest of justice.

[SecretaryofEvil]

To expand on the idea, Americans have quite a few constitutional rights, but there are certain limits to these rights. For example, one has the right to freedom of speech. But there can civil consequences for slander and libel. There are criminal consequences for saying certain things as well, the old example being one can’t falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

[psychonaut]

@SecretaryofEvil

Believe it or not, our justice system is not designed to be easily exploited by silly loopholes.

If it were a silly loophole, it would hardly be there by design, would it?

Anyway, I wasn’t serious about the suggestion that monolingual speakers of endangered languages would deliberately go around committing crimes simply because they thought the prosecution wouldn’t be able to find an interpreter. Consider the more realistic case of a foreign visitor who, without seeking to game the system, is arrested on a serious charge. Perhaps he is genuinely innocent of wrongdoing, but the language barrier prevents him from defending himself. The state searches in vain for an interpreter.

The accused has a right to a speedy trial, but the judge can agree to continue the trial for a wide variety of practical reasons that are in the interest of justice.

But the whole point of this thread is to establish at what point one’s right to a speedy trial trumps delays made in the name of “practical reasons” and “the interests of justice”. A judge can’t simply cite these principles to issue continuances indefinitely; at some point the defence is going to appeal them on constitutional or statutory grounds. The Sixth Amendment is no stranger to case law; people have successfully appealed indictments and convictions due to such delays, no matter how “practical” they may have been for the prosecution.

[SecretaryofEvil]

@psychonaut

If it were a silly loophole, it would hardly be there by design, would it?

Anyway, I wasn’t serious about the suggestion that monolingual speakers of endangered languages would deliberately go around committing crimes simply because they thought the prosecution wouldn’t be able to find an interpreter. Consider the more realistic case of a foreign visitor who, without seeking to game the system, is arrested on a serious charge. Perhaps he is genuinely innocent of wrongdoing, but the language barrier prevents him from defending himself. The state searches in vain for an interpreter.But the whole point of this thread is to establish at what point one’s right to a speedy trial trumps delays made in the name of “practical reasons” and “the interests of justice”. A judge can’t simply cite these principles to issue continuances indefinitely; at some point the defence is going to appeal them on constitutional or statutory grounds. The Sixth Amendment is no stranger to case law; people have successfully appealed indictments and convictions due to such delays, no matter how “practical” they may have been for the prosecution.

Exactly, the Sixth Amendment is no stranger to case law. Read Barker v. Wingo, a case that specifically outlines reasons for which a trial may be delayed. One of them is practicality. If you can find a single example of case law in which a defendant had the charges against him dismissed because he spoke an uncommon language, I’d like to see it. Other posters have already provided several links to cases where it was difficult to find interpreters, and the charges were not dismissed in any of them. One of the main points of a common law system is to provide judges with a certain amount of discretion to ensure that the law is applied reasonably and justly in individual cases.

The question was “Can speakers of rare languages commit crimes with impunity?” The answer is “No. They absolutely cannot.” Several examples have been provided to you of what is done in such cases and why.

[psychonaut]

@SecretaryofEvil

Exactly, the Sixth Amendment is no stranger to case law. Read Barker v. Wingo, a case that specifically outlines reasons for which a trial may be delayed. One of them is practicality.

Did you read the decision? It specifies that none of those reasons are “either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” So again, you can’t just delay a trial as long as you want on the grounds of practicality alone. The decision also makes specific reference to “neutral” causes of delays (that is, those which aren’t deliberate attempts to stall the process) such as overcrowded courts, noting that “the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant”; presumably finding an interpreter would also be covered under this rule.

If you can find a single example of case law in which a defendant had the charges against him dismissed because he spoke an uncommon language, I’d like to see it.

If I had known of one, I wouldn’t have posted this thread asking if there were any. As it turns out, I subsequently discovered and posted upthread one case (in Ontario) where a mistrial was declared because the court couldn’t find an interpreter; I don’t know whether the defendant was ever retried or the prosecution abandoned. Some more Googling this evening led me to the Maryland case of Mahamu Kanneh; the Washington Post reported that his case was dismissed because the court failed to locate an interpreter, so I suppose that’s your (and my) answer as to whether it has ever happened in the US. However, I note the article said that prosecutors had the option of appealing the dismissal, so I suppose it’s possible the decision was eventually reversed.

[Bricker]

@psychonaut

Some more Googling this evening led me to the Maryland case of Mahamu Kanneh; the Washington Post reported that his case was dismissed because the court failed to locate an interpreter, so I suppose that’s your (and my) answer as to whether it has ever happened in the US. However, I note the article said that prosecutors had the option of appealing the dismissal, so I suppose it’s possible the decision was eventually reversed.

It was. See State v. Kenneh, 944 A.2d 516 (Md 2008):

Although the delay in this case was significant, in light of the complex nature of the case, the length of the delay does not weigh heavily against the State. Because there was no bad faith on the part of the State in securing or failing to secure an interpreter, which was the primary reason for the delay, this factor does not weigh against the State. It is significant that Kanneh failed to object to all of the postponements but the last, and this factor is accorded great evidentiary weight. Finally, we note that any prejudice against Kanneh, as a result of the delay, was minimal. Balancing all of these factors, we cannot say that Kanneh’s right to a speedy trial was violated.

[SecretaryofEvil]

So does Bricker’s post finally answer your question?

[TokyoBayer]

@TonySinclair

That’s just crazy. Maybe not as crazy as blurring the genitals in their porn, but crazy.

You missed the crazy part of it.

@Isamu

In Japan you can be incarcerated easily for 23 days without being charged.

They question you and you do not have the right to have an attorney present during the questioning.

Any wonder why there is a high rate of false confessions here?

[SecretaryofEvil]

@psychonaut

Did you read the decision? It specifies that none of those reasons are “either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant.” So again, you can’t just delay a trial as long as you want on the grounds of practicality alone. The decision also makes specific reference to “neutral” causes of delays (that is, those which aren’t deliberate attempts to stall the process) such as overcrowded courts, noting that “the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant”; presumably finding an interpreter would also be covered under this rule.

You’ve missed the point of Barker v. Wingo. Have an intern write up a case brief for you. Or you could just google for one.