Jury Duty for Deaf people.

4 thoughts on “Jury Duty for Deaf people.”

  1. As usual, love your blogs and how deep you write, especially with honesty… Without sugar coating it to be “nice”. I have thought a lot about that yes or no to deaf jury. I have always thought no till recently I got my 3rd jury letter. I thought I say yes… Even with a hint of doubt. My doubt? Is how can I be so sure of what I am receiving? How can I determine a decision if there’s a chance I could have been misinterpreted or misunderstood such an emotion? A wording? A slang? A idiom?… Those things I have never heard as a ‘hearing person’ and never will. I don’t know what’s it like to be hearing and how could I be sure of my instincts. But it’s done, I did post it back and now waiting for further news if I am selected. BUT if this was a deaf person going to court. Yes I want to be on the jury… Yet again, will deaf people, especially the accused will think we,juries are against or for? …..

    That is something we may not know, I cannot foresee a court allowing 12 deaf juries for a deaf person. Nope. They are too ‘hearing’ to see and comprehend a deaf perspective.

    Another thing we need to consider. Some of us are ‘so deaf’ or ‘too hearing’ .. So yes not all of us will be ideal for jury.

    Xx DB

    1. 🙂

      I agree with the Deaf jury never happening. I can’t see it either. Especially with the community being so small, nearly no one would be able to sit due to conflict of interest. I said it to reinforce my point in regards to my stance, really.

      Love you too. Xxx

  2. This is where we will disagree Edan.

    Firstly there has been research done, Australian, that pretty much showed that deaf people understood language used in a court setting that was relayed via an interpreter on par with hearing people…. If memory serves me there was virtually no difference.

    Secondly if we commit crimes, deafies that is, we are expected to access the court process with interpreters … Unless some sort of mental incapacity can be proven.

    Put simply, they can’t have it both ways.

    A jury is about the experience of a group of people and their ability to understand the arguments put forward … The argument that the interpreter is a 13th Jury person or that the interpreter might err in their translations simply us not backed by research.

    Certainly only the best interpreters should be used but we are capable of sitting on a jury and it should be our right.

    That said. .. good article and one that we should all read and consider.

    1. Care to link to said research? I challenge you to do that exact experiment then ask the deaf person involved to write down what the interpreter said and sync it with the audio recording. No way will it be the same. And that is my point.

      As for the second point, I fail to see the relevance to that one because I am not discussing that at all.

      As for the interpreter thing “not being backed by research”… Are you saying they are super-people that NEVER fail to convey every single word, verbatim, with all nuances included every single time? Research has nothing to do with this and you know it. It’s common knowledge/sense. I get the feeling you’re cherry picking the points you want to read and argue about when you are actually coming across as completely missing the point of my post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s