All citizens regardless of their specific or diverse characteristics must have an assurance of their rights being met to ensure a free and just hearing. The elderly defendants and the deaf are among the people with special traits within the population. To ensure that their rights are upheld during their hearings, these groups need certain specific characteristics to ensure that their trials are held on time, and before an impartial jury and judge. This paper looks at how the pretrial process and how the jury is appointed to ensure that the defendants’ rights to a speedy trial, an impartial jury and judge are held. Works of various authors will be used to bring insight into the issue at hand.
Various associations and organizations have taken the mandate to ensure that the rights of these special defendants are withheld. An example is the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), which provides solutions to the major challenges that the deaf in the society may go through while accessing local and state court hearings. The NAD ensures the preservation, protection and promotion of rights of the deaf people in America. A synopsis of the court systems’ legal obligations is to guarantee that the communication process and recommendations are effective for court administrators to certain that the courts are accessible to all citizens of a state or country including the handicapped and the elderly (Frierson & Srinivasan 2018) . The activities carried out by these organizations in promoting rights of the deaf are essential in ensuring that the rights of a defendant in courts are done in a speedy trial and by an impartial jury and judges.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Statement of the Problem
There are many instances that the deaf and elderly within the society receive unfair treatment within society due to their prevailing physical conditions. As a result, their rights to a speedy trial, impartial judge and jury are not assured. The lack of understanding among most individuals within the system usually makes them not get the fair hearing that they deserve. An example of this situation is when a deaf woman, at risk of physical domestic violence from an ex-boyfriend, sought a Protection Order from the local courthouse, but the courthouse, lacking an interpreter denied her a chance to express her concerns, making her unable to participate actively in the court hearing. Thus, denying her the vital protection she deserved legally against her perpetrator.
Another example is of an elderly woman with a hearing difficulty who sought to become an intervenor in her kin’s guardianship hearing. The court denied using computer-assisted real-time transcription (CART) as she wasn’t a direct party in the hearing. With the lack of CART services, the elderly woman was unable to comprehend the proceedings or even participate, and as a result, the child got placed in foster care. The CART converts speech into text allowing someone with a hearing difficulty to read and understand the court proceedings. It was only later that the court examined the grandmother’s appeal for intervenor status that she was given CART services. With the resources to fully understand the proceedings in the court, she was now able to present her case and consequently got her grandson’s custody. The case withheld justice from this woman by denying her right to a speedy trial by initially limiting her participation in the hearing.
Another incidence is of an elderly man with an alcohol abuse disorder was presented before a judge on a case about an assault. An alcohol-induced neurocognitive disorder made the man lack the capacity to stand trial and therefore an evaluation of the psychology of the man was necessary to allow the judge to understand the situation better before any conclusions were made. Therefore, the impartiality of the judge ensured that the man received a fair hearing by considering his specific condition.
A case of a man who disclosed to the judge of his hearing conditions that caused him not to understand the court proceedings in a custody hearing of his children is another incident of an impartial ruling. Upon being asked to wear his hearing aids, the man told the judge that did not help. The judge jailed him for some days under a charge of contempt of court. Due to the lack of an impartial judge, this ruling undermined the defendant’s right to a speedy trial through his arrest for causes not under his control.
The above examples are among thousands of cases that occur in the real-life of people with special needs that show the grave consequences ensuing in the court system to the deaf due to the lack of access to communication devices and services for full participation in their hearings. Individuals with hearing challenges have the right to access communication services in court proceedings carried out by all courts within the country. Therefore, courts must fully understand specific conditions that people involved in cases undergo to provide a conducive atmosphere for full participation in hearings. Thus, they can provide auxiliary aids and services to the deaf to ensure the smooth flow of information between all parties involved. The full understanding of their conditions will make defendants’ rights be upheld by an impartial judge, an impartial jury as well as a speedy trial.
The Jury Selection Process
An impartial jury is a right to all defendants, in any case, to ensure that the decision arrived at by this team is fair and has no basis on the bias. The process involves the identification of potential jurors who are questioned by a judge to find out their suitability to serve in the jury service. The American constitution provides for the right to trial by a jury in criminal cases. Lawyers from both sides also question the jurors to uncover certain traits and experiences that may cause them to favor their sides (Napier et al., 2018). Thus the lawyers have the chance to strike out a juror who might favor the other team, thereby creating an impartial jury.
How a Defendant's Rights are Assured in the Court System
The American constitution has certain acts that are aimed at improving the rights of the disabled, particularly the deaf. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects all the disabled in society to participate fully in court activities (Tester, 2018). For effective communication, this act mandates the provision of hearing aids and services to those with hearing challenges. These allow the deaf an equal opportunity to take part in all proceedings within the court. The requests made by people living with disabilities are given due consideration in the choice of the type of service or auxiliary aid which allows a speedy trial to be done. The act also states that the courts must take the appropriate steps to ensure that the disabled participate in communication that is effective like the one that others enjoy.
To ensure a speedy trial, the American Department of justice describes that auxiliary aids and services for the deaf comprise qualified interpreters, captioning, and transcription services among other effective ways to be used in hearings. Most deaf people usually use sign language as a mode of communication and hence, the use of qualified interpreters of sign language who have undergone rigorous training on legal terms and procedures is one of the most effective tools for effective communication in the court systems. The ability to make accurate, impartial, effective and the knowledge of specialized legal terms in the justice systems is what makes an interpreter qualified. Thus there is also a need for training and certification of interpreters by state laws to ensure their competence.
Transcription services can be used where the deaf who don’t depend on sign language and those with higher reading comprehension levels. An example used is the CART that automatically transcribes speech into text onto a screen. Time is of the essence in this process as an interpreter, or the transcription services may sometimes take time to convey the information between the various respondents in court proceedings. The choice of an auxiliary service or aids in a case ensures that the deaf respondents receive a speedy and fair trial (Elder & Scwartz, 2018). The deaf should also be given a chance to serve on juries by providing them with the required aids to ensure that the jury comprises an impartial panel made up of people from all walks of life (Gonzales, 2019).
Conclusion
These special groups in the population, such as the deaf and the elderly in the legal system usually face certain challenges in pursuit of their rights. As a result, courts need to make their proceedings accessible to these groups by ensuring they have interpreters, captioning and transcription services to ensure that the deaf fully participates in the hearings. They can achieve this by providing auxiliary aids and services, as well as modifying some policies in the courts to ensure that the deaf is not discriminated against based on their disabilities. Therefore, courts need to ensure that their activities, programs, information, and proceedings are available to everyone including those living with special needs to ensure that their hearings are done promptly before an impartial jury and judge.
References
Elder, B. C., & Schwartz, M. A. (2018). Effective deaf access to justice. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , 23 (4), 331-340. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eny023
Frierson, R. L., & Srinivasan, S. (2018). Evaluation of elderly persons in the criminal justice system.
Gonzales Rose, J. B. (2019). Color-Blind But Not Color-Deaf: Accent Discrimination in Jury Selection. NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change , 44 , 309. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/993
Napier, J., et al. (2018). Changing the international justice landscape: Perspectives on deaf citizenship and jury service. Sign Language Studies , 19 (2), 240-266. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0034
Tester, C. (2018). How American Sign Language-English interpreters who can hear determine the need for a deaf interpreter for court proceedings. Journal of Interpretation , 26 (1), 3. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol26/iss1/3
