The “Miss America” contestant who announced that her major was “court reporting” inspired this question:
Why do courts employ (and pay wages & benefits to) people whose job it is to furiously record every word that is spoken in a court when tape-recording technology has been around for decades?
Here are the advantages I see to a tape-recorder vs. a live person:
The tape recorder won’t make mistakes.
The court reporter needs a paycheck; I can buy a decent tape recorder at Electrode Hut for 20 bucks.
The tape recorder will pick up nuances in the speakers’ voices, such as: yelling, speaking through laughter, speaking through tears, etc. that can’t be picked up on paper.
It’s easier to catalog and store cassette tapes than it is to do the same thing with spools and spools and spools of court-reporting paper.
You are giving technology waaay too much credit. Most people do not need to “hear” what happened in the case. They need to read it. Having the information in written form is what the courts are going for. Automatic speech-to-text translation technology is not accurate enough to replace trained court reporters at the time of this writing.
Seriously, the hardest part of court recording I’ve seen is staying awake.
They do use some electronics. When the lawyers go for a sidebar I’ve watched the CR run up a microphone with an earpiece so he/she can grab what the jury isn’t allowed to hear.
In my jurisdiction (and probably in many others) there is frequently no court reporter present for court proceedings (this includes many trials). Instead, an audio tape is made of the proceedings.
This isn’t necessarily as cheap as it sounds, though. As was pointed out above, a written record (a “transcript”) is often needed. Thus, the tapes must be sent to a transcription agency, where somebody listens to the tape and transcribes it. I believe this is a little less expensive than employing a live court reporter, but not tremendously less expensive.
FWIW, when I fight my (infrequent) parking tickets, I usually end up going before a judge-type person who sits behind a plain ol’ office desk with a $40 Radio Shack tape recorder capturing our whole interaction. At the beginning of each “case” the judge-type person recites the details (ticket #, etc.) into the machine, then moves on to my testimony and Q&As. All very, very informal, but amazingly efficient, I’ve found. But then again, no one’s life, or other high stakes, are in the balance.
In VA Court Reporters are not used in General District Court (traffic cases, misdemeanors, small claims). They are occassionally used in Circuit Court, but usually only if the defendant requests one and is willing to pay the cost. I also had one show up to a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, but I refused to pay the cost since I had not hired her. Most court reporters are used in private practice for depositions.
The reason a court reporter is requested it simple: If you want an accurate, easily reproducible transcript of exactly what was said you need it to be in writing. If I only have a tape of a proceeding then in order for it to be of any use it has to be listened to (its hard to find exactly what you’re looking for, there’s lots of long pauses and extraneous stuff). With a written record I can easily reporduce the whole thing, or parts of it as needed, I can reference pages or parts of testimony and don’t have to say “Yes, but didn’t you say…” I can, instead, say “On Page 69 you said…” Also, if I want to appeal a decision I need to make it as simple for the judge as possible. He isn’t going to listen to a tape, he will look at a copy of the transcript. The judge controls the court, make it easy on him and make him your friend.
As plnnr stated, court reporters are used at depositions. You need an impartial third party to record the testimony of the despondent. Would you trust the deposing attorney to faithfully record your sworn statement? Neither is he going to trust your attorney. The court reporter will also used to swear you.