Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,164
- Reaction score
- 5
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/nyregion/10deaf.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
The prevailing custom in the New York courts is for sign language interpreters to work in tandem: one translates the rapid-fire arguments of courtroom life, while the other gets to rest weary hands.
There is, however, a shortage in the courts of sign language interpreters, so this buddy system does not always work, according to court officials. Yesterday, a judge in Queens took note of the shortage, writing a memorandum that explained why he had awarded an interpreter who was forced to work alone twice his daily rate of pay.
The judge, Justice Charles J. Markey of State Supreme Court, gave the higher rate to Gabriel Grayson, a certified American Sign Language interpreter. It was after Mr. Grayson had translated for a deaf plaintiff at a six-day civil trial in June involving a personal injury case. Mr. Grayson had told the judge and other court officials in Queens of the normal two-interpreter setup, but agreed to work alone, for a bit more money, after officials could not find another interpreter to relieve him.
The judge’s memo was entirely self-motivated. No one at the trial — not the plaintiffs, Farrah and Bibi Wahid, nor the defendant, the Long Island Rail Road — disputed that Mr. Grayson should receive the higher rate.
In fact, in his 13-page decision quoting experts on the deaf (and a former lord chief justice of England and Wales), Justice Markey explicitly said that he was trying to call attention to what he considers a worthy cause.
The memorandum, the judge wrote, is intended to explain the court’s decision in signing the order for the increased pay “and to throw a spotlight on the disturbing lack of skilled A.S.L. interpreters in the courts.”
That lack, according to research laid out in the judge’s memo, has a number of causes. First, he wrote, the court interpreters must often wait months to schedule an examination with their certifying body, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. The exams are expensive, the judge wrote, as are the dues that interpreters must pay or else risk losing certification.
The court’s rate of $250 a day is not competitive compared with pay rates for similar duties in the private sector, he explained. Justice Markey also pointed out that interpreters are rarely given cancellation fees when they work in the courts, where hearings can be called off without notice at any given time.
Justice Markey noted the “explosion of employment opportunities” for the certified interpreters at video conferencing events — a much gentler form of work than the nonstop world of the courts. While there are no official studies of sign language interpreters in the New York legal system, Justice Markey quoted a study from Nebraska that said 65 percent of all assignments for American Sign Language interpreters in that state’s courts went unfilled.
Back in New York, he said, even in Rochester, which has the largest per capita deaf population in the country (the National Technical Institute for the Deaf is there), only a limited number of certified court interpreters are available.
Justice Markey made specific mention of Kathleen Rozanski, a deaf woman in Rochester who filed a federal complaint in 2002 related to the handling of her divorce.
Justice Markey wrote that Ms. Rozanski’s lawyer did not hire a certified interpreter, but instead relied on notes, telecommunications devices for the deaf and family members familiar with sign language to communicate with her in court. In her complaint to the Justice Department, Ms. Rozanski said these alternate methods of communication had led to higher legal fees. Federal officials agreed, finding in a settlement with the lawyer that attorneys must provide interpreters to communicate with the deaf.
Gordon Hewart, the lord chief justice of England and Wales from 1922 to 1940, once wrote, “A long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance, but it is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Justice Markey wrote, “With increasing societal awareness and sensitivity to the plight of deaf persons in the courts, we can add to Hewart’s famous dictum that justice, in the form of courtroom proceedings, must also be clearly heard and, for the hearing-deprived, must be unmistakably interpreted so as to be undeniably understood.”
The prevailing custom in the New York courts is for sign language interpreters to work in tandem: one translates the rapid-fire arguments of courtroom life, while the other gets to rest weary hands.
There is, however, a shortage in the courts of sign language interpreters, so this buddy system does not always work, according to court officials. Yesterday, a judge in Queens took note of the shortage, writing a memorandum that explained why he had awarded an interpreter who was forced to work alone twice his daily rate of pay.
The judge, Justice Charles J. Markey of State Supreme Court, gave the higher rate to Gabriel Grayson, a certified American Sign Language interpreter. It was after Mr. Grayson had translated for a deaf plaintiff at a six-day civil trial in June involving a personal injury case. Mr. Grayson had told the judge and other court officials in Queens of the normal two-interpreter setup, but agreed to work alone, for a bit more money, after officials could not find another interpreter to relieve him.
The judge’s memo was entirely self-motivated. No one at the trial — not the plaintiffs, Farrah and Bibi Wahid, nor the defendant, the Long Island Rail Road — disputed that Mr. Grayson should receive the higher rate.
In fact, in his 13-page decision quoting experts on the deaf (and a former lord chief justice of England and Wales), Justice Markey explicitly said that he was trying to call attention to what he considers a worthy cause.
The memorandum, the judge wrote, is intended to explain the court’s decision in signing the order for the increased pay “and to throw a spotlight on the disturbing lack of skilled A.S.L. interpreters in the courts.”
That lack, according to research laid out in the judge’s memo, has a number of causes. First, he wrote, the court interpreters must often wait months to schedule an examination with their certifying body, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. The exams are expensive, the judge wrote, as are the dues that interpreters must pay or else risk losing certification.
The court’s rate of $250 a day is not competitive compared with pay rates for similar duties in the private sector, he explained. Justice Markey also pointed out that interpreters are rarely given cancellation fees when they work in the courts, where hearings can be called off without notice at any given time.
Justice Markey noted the “explosion of employment opportunities” for the certified interpreters at video conferencing events — a much gentler form of work than the nonstop world of the courts. While there are no official studies of sign language interpreters in the New York legal system, Justice Markey quoted a study from Nebraska that said 65 percent of all assignments for American Sign Language interpreters in that state’s courts went unfilled.
Back in New York, he said, even in Rochester, which has the largest per capita deaf population in the country (the National Technical Institute for the Deaf is there), only a limited number of certified court interpreters are available.
Justice Markey made specific mention of Kathleen Rozanski, a deaf woman in Rochester who filed a federal complaint in 2002 related to the handling of her divorce.
Justice Markey wrote that Ms. Rozanski’s lawyer did not hire a certified interpreter, but instead relied on notes, telecommunications devices for the deaf and family members familiar with sign language to communicate with her in court. In her complaint to the Justice Department, Ms. Rozanski said these alternate methods of communication had led to higher legal fees. Federal officials agreed, finding in a settlement with the lawyer that attorneys must provide interpreters to communicate with the deaf.
Gordon Hewart, the lord chief justice of England and Wales from 1922 to 1940, once wrote, “A long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance, but it is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Justice Markey wrote, “With increasing societal awareness and sensitivity to the plight of deaf persons in the courts, we can add to Hewart’s famous dictum that justice, in the form of courtroom proceedings, must also be clearly heard and, for the hearing-deprived, must be unmistakably interpreted so as to be undeniably understood.”
