TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/052989/05298900.018

Text File | 1990-09-22 | 4KB | 64 lines

LAW, Page 65

Libertad and Justicia for All

A shortage of interpreters is leaving the courts speechless


    "Equal Justice Under Law," reads the motto atop the U.S.
Supreme Court building. The words are lofty, but for the thousands
of people who trudge through the criminal-justice system daily and
who speak no English, the phrase means literally nothing. For many
of these defendants, the words are also legally empty. American
justice for those who do not comprehend English is anything but
uniform, let alone understandable. There are no nationwide
standards for court interpreters, little training and virtually no
monitoring. "Everybody gets a piece of due process," says David
Fellmeth, a senior court interpreter in New York City. "But how big
a piece depends on the interpreter."

    Horror stories regularly fill court dockets. In a New York
federal court, a translated undercover wire quotes a Cuban
defendant: "I don't even have the ten kilos." The defendant means
kilos of currency (Cuban cents), but the translated statement
suggests kilograms of drugs. In a New Jersey homicide trial, the
prosecutor asks whether the testimony of a witness is lengthier
than the translation. "Yes," responds the Polish interpreter, "but
everything else was not important."

    Congress tried to surmount the language barriers in the federal
courts by passing legislation eleven years ago authorizing
Government-paid interpreters for those who do not speak English.
So far, though, only 308 people have passed the rigorous
Spanish-only federal certification process -- a cadre far too small
to handle the 43,000 annual requests for interpreters in 60
languages. The situation in the states is bleaker. Last year Cook
County, Ill., processed 40,000 requests, and the New York courts
sought out interpreters 250 times a day. As in the federal system,
Spanish is the language most in demand.

    Only a handful of states test their interpreters for language
skills. Thus in many local courts, translation may be a free-lance
project for the secretary who speaks a little French or a favor
requested from a relative of the defendant. "A family member is the
worst person you can use," says Maureen Dunn, an interpreter for
the deaf. "They have their own side of the story, and they add and
omit things." Besides, interpretation is a sophisticated art. It
demands not only a broad vocabulary and instant recall but also the
ability to reproduce tone and nuance and a good working knowledge
of street slang. "Most people believe that if you are bilingual,
you can interpret," says Jack Leeth of the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts. "That's about as true as saying that if you
have two hands, you can automatically be a concert pianist."

    Professional interpreters are among the first to admit the sad
state of translation in the courts. They are often relegated to
clerical status, with low pay, and asked to work without time to
prepare. Says New York interpreter Gabriel Felix: "We could use a
central administrator, dictionaries and in some courts a place to
hang our coats, a chair and a desk."

    Some jurisdictions are trying to make improvements. New York
and New Jersey are broadening their testing and sending their
interpreters to school for further training. The Federal Government
is working on new requirements for Navajo and Haitian-Creole
interpreters. And in Los Angeles a federal lawsuit is demanding
certified interpreters in immigration proceedings. For now,
however, the quality of court interpreting around the country
depends on the luck of the draw.