Providing an interpreter when a deaf sign language user is interviewed by police is not a nice little extra, it is a fundamental right to access; and it’s not just about proper access for the deaf person. How can police officers expect to do their job when communication fails?
I’m disappointed that we still see media reports of deaf people having to challenge police procedures and, in deed, taking them through the courts to fight for the right to clear communication. Not only should this be ‘business as usual’, it should be common sense.
In a recent case, William Lawrence and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition challenged the workings of the Englewood Police Department from an incident back in August 2011. At that time, according to reports, Lawrence was arrested on warrant and the police failed to provide a sign language interpreter during questioning.
In the UK, since 2001, we have had an agreement in place to direct that police, courts, and other law enforcement organisations, engage the service of independent qualified interpreters throughout the criminal justice process. For deaf sign language users, that has meant engaging interpreters registered with NRCPD (the National Register of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind people). Now I know that there are currently all kinds of questions being asked about the outsourcing of interpreter provision with the relatively new Ministry of Justice framework agreement but I don’t intend getting in to that on this posting. The fact is, the rules have been there to provide some standard of access for deaf people.
Allow them to consider the evidence, not the process!
There will be stories, I’m sure, of similar failings in the UK and suddenly, when it happens, no one is talking about whether the suspect is guilty or not guilty. They begin debating the processes engaged and whether the authorities have breached an individual’s rights. In reality, there may be other people involved here – I mean victims whose rights have been violated but we won’t be talking about them. As soon as process fails everyone’s attention is on that. Get things right and we can allow the courts to consider the evidence and not the process!
He was also handcuffed
In the William Lawrence case, another point they challenged was that he was handcuffed. You may not be surprised to learn that I have a view on that too! Handcuffing is an absolute necessity in many cases when people are arrested and it can be argued that it protects the officers and the individual. If someone is properly restrained you avoid the opportunity for them to display aggression which could result in additional resources being used such as taser, CS spray and so on. But when I say that handcuffing is necessary in many cases, it follows that it is not necessary in all cases.
I firmly believe that, in relation to deaf people, special consideration should be given to the need for handcuffing and, if required, consideration for the continued need. Handcuffing a deaf sign language user has been compared with gagging.
If the officers don’t sign, what’s the problem?
I have discussed the issue of handcuffing with officers and had comments such as, “Surely, if the officers don’t sign, what’s the problem? The officers wouldn’t understand them anyway!” It’s a fair point and you could be forgiven for thinking that for communication to occur, you need at least two people who understand each other but I’d ask you to re‑think and put yourself in the position of being in the minority.
Imagine, if you will, that you are in a foreign land where you don’t speak the language and no one there speaks yours. Imagine then being arrested. Let’s say that you have been accused of a crime you didn’t do … falsely accused. You are surrounded by people who cannot understand you. Do you stand silent or do you still protest your innocence? “I’ve done nothing – This is wrong – You’ve got the wrong person!”
I suggest you will speak to try to get your point across; and if you were prevented from speaking, gagged, your frustration would erupt! That is what a deaf person will experience.
Professor David Moreby wrote in 1990 on “Communication problems inherent in a cross–cultural manning environment” and referred to the fact that “Everyman panics in his own language”. That is true too of deaf people.
Only when we communicate can we truly understand.
Communication is a two-way process and it is only when we communicate that we can truly understand. The deaf person does not need an interpreter, the police need an interpreter to perform their role.
Don’t stop at the communication barrier. Get over it!
