zookeeper4321
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 0
Beowulf said:Except to use them as shields.
LOL- Stay away from Mr. Zookeepers jail- you'll need a shield. He's a hard ass. Hopefully, you don't plan to go back.
no interpreters in jail
- Thread starter zookeeper4321
- Start date
LOL- Stay away from Mr. Zookeepers jail- you'll need a shield. He's a hard ass. Hopefully, you don't plan to go back.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
The Rights of Deaf Inmates
Deaf people serving prison terms are frequently denied basic due process rights and access to rehabilitation programs and prison services because prison administrators fail to understand their special communication needs. However, deaf persons have constitutional and statutory rights of access in correctional facilities. These rights are providing the impetus for many correctional systems to re-evaluate the services they have available to deaf inmates.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Š794, as amended, guarantees persons with disabilities equal access to any entity that received federal financial assistance, either directly or indirectly. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12141 et seq., now extends these same rights to inmates in all state and local facilities. The standards of accessibility are similar under these two laws.
The U.S. Department of Justice Analysis of its Section 504 regulation explains the specific obligations that jails and prisons have as to deaf inmates. The Analysis states:
[D]etention and correctional agencies must insure that their programs and activities are accessible to handicapped persons. For example, correctional agencies should provide for the availability of qualified interpreters (certified, where possible, by a recognized certification agency) to enable hearing-impaired inmates to participate on an equal basis with non-handicapped inmates in the rehabilitation programs offered by the correctional agencies (e.g., educational programs). 45 Fed. Reg. 37630 (June 3, 1980)
Under this regulation, a deaf inmate has a right to be provided with sign language interpreter services to enable him or her to participate in or benefit from programs and services the prison offers other inmates, as well as at any disciplinary proceedings. See also, Letter from Patrick, 7 NDLR 425 (April 11, 1995).
Title II of the ADA, the U.S. Department of Justice regulation to Title II, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and the Analysis thereto, 56 Fed. Reg. 35694 (July 26, 1991) clarify the requirements of Section 504, and extend them to institutions which do not receive federal financial assistance. First, the Title II regulation defines the term "qualified interpreter" to mean:
. . . an interpreter who is able to interpret effectively, accurately and impartially both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary.
28 C.F.R. 35.104.
The Department of Justice regulation to Title II of the ADA also sets forth other auxiliary aids and services which a state or local correctional facility may have to provide to a deaf or hard of hearing inmate:
[q]ualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided transcription services, written materials, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, telephones compatible with hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, telecommunication devices for deaf persons (TDDs), videotext displays, or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments.
28 C.F.R. 35.104.
Federal courts have confirmed that the ADA and Section 504 create rights for deaf inmates, including the right to qualified interpreter services. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, ___ U.S. ___ (June 15, 1998), 1998 LEXIS 3888 (1998); Duffy v. Riveland, 88 F.3d 1525 (9th Cir. 1996); Bonner v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 857 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1988). For a general overview of the legal issues pertaining to deaf inmates, see Elaine Gardner, The Legal Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities, 14 ST. LOUIS PUBLIC L.REV. 175 (1994).
For deaf and hard of hearing inmates, other important auxiliary aids and services generally include TTYs and television decoders. It is clear that the ADA and Section 504 require provision of these important auxiliary aids when other inmates have access to telephones and television.
Policies and procedures must also be modified, in order to give inmates access to this equipment that is equal to the opportunity given to inmates with normal hearing. For example, a facility must not only provide a TTY for a deaf inmate to use, it must also allow sufficient time to use the TTY. TTY conversations take more than three times as long as voice conversations. Therefore, if a facility has a rule that limits inmate telephone use to fifteen minutes, they may need to extend this time for a deaf inmate using a TTY. The facility must also ensure that the deaf inmates have the same hours of access to telephone service as do hearing inmates. Some facilities limit TTY use to daytime hours because the office where a TTY is stored is only open during those hours. This violates the ADA, if other inmates can make telephone calls during evening or weekend hours. No appointments or written requests to use the TTY should be required, if the same is not required when hearing inmates use a conventional telephone. Finally, some facilities prohibit inmates from using 800-level telephone numbers. However, deaf people need to be able to reach the statewide TTY relay service, mandated by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The relay service enables a deaf person to telephone people who do not have TTYs. Deaf inmates must be access to the statewide relay service.
The ADA is enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Civil Rights. Complaints can be filed with the Department of Justice or in courts.
http://www.scadservices.org/SCIRT/deaf inmates.htm
Deaf people serving prison terms are frequently denied basic due process rights and access to rehabilitation programs and prison services because prison administrators fail to understand their special communication needs. However, deaf persons have constitutional and statutory rights of access in correctional facilities. These rights are providing the impetus for many correctional systems to re-evaluate the services they have available to deaf inmates.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Š794, as amended, guarantees persons with disabilities equal access to any entity that received federal financial assistance, either directly or indirectly. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12141 et seq., now extends these same rights to inmates in all state and local facilities. The standards of accessibility are similar under these two laws.
The U.S. Department of Justice Analysis of its Section 504 regulation explains the specific obligations that jails and prisons have as to deaf inmates. The Analysis states:
[D]etention and correctional agencies must insure that their programs and activities are accessible to handicapped persons. For example, correctional agencies should provide for the availability of qualified interpreters (certified, where possible, by a recognized certification agency) to enable hearing-impaired inmates to participate on an equal basis with non-handicapped inmates in the rehabilitation programs offered by the correctional agencies (e.g., educational programs). 45 Fed. Reg. 37630 (June 3, 1980)
Under this regulation, a deaf inmate has a right to be provided with sign language interpreter services to enable him or her to participate in or benefit from programs and services the prison offers other inmates, as well as at any disciplinary proceedings. See also, Letter from Patrick, 7 NDLR 425 (April 11, 1995).
Title II of the ADA, the U.S. Department of Justice regulation to Title II, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and the Analysis thereto, 56 Fed. Reg. 35694 (July 26, 1991) clarify the requirements of Section 504, and extend them to institutions which do not receive federal financial assistance. First, the Title II regulation defines the term "qualified interpreter" to mean:
. . . an interpreter who is able to interpret effectively, accurately and impartially both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary.
28 C.F.R. 35.104.
The Department of Justice regulation to Title II of the ADA also sets forth other auxiliary aids and services which a state or local correctional facility may have to provide to a deaf or hard of hearing inmate:
[q]ualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided transcription services, written materials, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, telephones compatible with hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, telecommunication devices for deaf persons (TDDs), videotext displays, or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments.
28 C.F.R. 35.104.
Federal courts have confirmed that the ADA and Section 504 create rights for deaf inmates, including the right to qualified interpreter services. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, ___ U.S. ___ (June 15, 1998), 1998 LEXIS 3888 (1998); Duffy v. Riveland, 88 F.3d 1525 (9th Cir. 1996); Bonner v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 857 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1988). For a general overview of the legal issues pertaining to deaf inmates, see Elaine Gardner, The Legal Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities, 14 ST. LOUIS PUBLIC L.REV. 175 (1994).
For deaf and hard of hearing inmates, other important auxiliary aids and services generally include TTYs and television decoders. It is clear that the ADA and Section 504 require provision of these important auxiliary aids when other inmates have access to telephones and television.
Policies and procedures must also be modified, in order to give inmates access to this equipment that is equal to the opportunity given to inmates with normal hearing. For example, a facility must not only provide a TTY for a deaf inmate to use, it must also allow sufficient time to use the TTY. TTY conversations take more than three times as long as voice conversations. Therefore, if a facility has a rule that limits inmate telephone use to fifteen minutes, they may need to extend this time for a deaf inmate using a TTY. The facility must also ensure that the deaf inmates have the same hours of access to telephone service as do hearing inmates. Some facilities limit TTY use to daytime hours because the office where a TTY is stored is only open during those hours. This violates the ADA, if other inmates can make telephone calls during evening or weekend hours. No appointments or written requests to use the TTY should be required, if the same is not required when hearing inmates use a conventional telephone. Finally, some facilities prohibit inmates from using 800-level telephone numbers. However, deaf people need to be able to reach the statewide TTY relay service, mandated by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The relay service enables a deaf person to telephone people who do not have TTYs. Deaf inmates must be access to the statewide relay service.
The ADA is enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Civil Rights. Complaints can be filed with the Department of Justice or in courts.
http://www.scadservices.org/SCIRT/deaf inmates.htm
Y
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
- Messages
- 3,103
- Reaction score
- 2
IF I am in a prison myself, this would be fair
if they have at least 2 or 3 interpreters there
ALL THE TIMES no matter what only
because it is NOT fair whenever these
hearing prisoners can hear and participate
another prisoners daily conversations while
I would be left out in the cold without
being able to participate or overhear their
daily conversations only because there
were no interpreter available. No Fair.
I would need interpreters available there
all the times no matter what. That would
be reasonable to get interpreters available
24/7 all the times.
This way would be more equal access
for all hearing and deaf prisoners.
Every Prison SHOULD have at least 2 interpreters
being available there every day all day long,
no matter what. The higher number of
deaf prisoners, then increase number of
interpreters per prison.
I keep "Thank to the Lord" that I actually
never went to prison anyway.
if they have at least 2 or 3 interpreters there
ALL THE TIMES no matter what only
because it is NOT fair whenever these
hearing prisoners can hear and participate
another prisoners daily conversations while
I would be left out in the cold without
being able to participate or overhear their
daily conversations only because there
were no interpreter available. No Fair.
I would need interpreters available there
all the times no matter what. That would
be reasonable to get interpreters available
24/7 all the times.
This way would be more equal access
for all hearing and deaf prisoners.
Every Prison SHOULD have at least 2 interpreters
being available there every day all day long,
no matter what. The higher number of
deaf prisoners, then increase number of
interpreters per prison.
I keep "Thank to the Lord" that I actually
never went to prison anyway.
Etoile
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 1,185
- Reaction score
- 0
So should a deaf person have an interpreter follow them around all the time, 24 hours a day, just so they can communicate with hearing people and not miss out on things? Is that how it should be in a perfect world?Y said:
I think in the specific case of a jail, it is a cost issue. Yes, it would be great if every deaf inmate had an interpreter there 24/7 so they wouldn't miss out on things. But remember jails are publicly funded (regardless of who runs them, they get public money) and they just don't have money for 24/7 interpreters. It would be nice but it's not economically reasonable.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
I agree that the cost would be thru the roof, and the other problem would be finding enough terps willing to live in prison. Interpreting for a meeting between a Deaf inmate in an office with the warden, or with the inmate's attorney, or with a doctor is one thing. Staying in the general population with the inmate and his "pals" is something else.Etoile said:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,440
- Reaction score
- 4
Y said:
I actually can't think of too many situations at all where this is true. Especially in a very specialized setting like a prison, that means you're only going to have a couple of interpreters in your area who are qualified for and agree to a job like this. That means, let's say in the best case scenario you get three interpreters. So each interpreter has to spend eight hours a day living in prison?
It's not even remotely feasible. A much better option would be to make sign language classes available in prisons with a deaf prisoner or prisoner(s), if there is interest from them and other prisoners. Get a teacher who is familiar with and doesn't mind teaching prison terms. Probably you'd still need certified and qualified interpreters for occasions like Reba describes (big research day for you, Reba!
) but at least it might reduce some linguistic isolation, assuming there is any.Wasn't there a thread a while back about ITPs for prison inmates in order to alleviate the interpreter shortage?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,440
- Reaction score
- 4
Etoile said:Who is making it a comedy, and how?
I agree. This has looked to me like an interesting and serious discussion. Please be so kind as to point out quotes from posts that have been making fun of this issue.
Nesmuth
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,191
- Reaction score
- 1
Tousi said:
Private company - Title III
Governmental Agency - Title II
So if Title II violation is claimed upon a Title III company so would Title III company say its not Title III but Section 504.
What is it? Title II or Title III or Section 504? Thats the question thats making this thread look like a comedy. We havent cleared up as to whether this entity is a public or private entity. We then gotta agree on a specific Title then proceed on with the ideas of enforcement.
Etoile needs to be reminded that cost factor is not a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.
Richard
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,440
- Reaction score
- 4
Nesmuth said:
And in as patronizing a manner as possible, evidently.
Are you referring to the earlier part of the thread discussing under what circumstances an interpreter should be called in to work at a prison? Or are you seriously asserting that interpreters should be forced to give up their civil rights and reside in jail for at minimum eight hours a day every day?
If the former, that's out of my league.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,440
- Reaction score
- 4
LinuxGold said:
I wouldn't call it useless, to me that is vital! But that kind of thing would happen in meetings with the convict's lawyers and appeals team and so forth, I believe, where an interpreter would without doubt be required. I'm not sure it's relevant when it comes to everyday life in prison, where to paraphrase "The Shawshank Redemption" -- "everyone is 'innocent' in there." I do think any kind of official meeting that takes place -- with a doctor, warden, lawyer, etc. -- must have an interpreter present if one is needed.