Over the last decades, there have been many attempts to bridge the language barrier in all facets of American life, including the court system where people who do not speak English and do not have a translator run the risk of serving time in prison because of those obstacles. Despite the fact that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal assistance, people with limited ability to speak English often find themselves without translators in court (Language Barrier, 2009.) According to Title VI , agencies that receive any economic assistance from the government are mandated to make efforts to guarantee that services are provided to citizens with Limited English Proficiency in a way that does not discriminate. This paper will discuss the language barriers that occur in US courts as a result of a lack of available court interpreters, and the efforts to resolve them.
Despite the legal mandate to do so, many court systems in the United States have not complied with the most fundamental protections of constitutional due process: guaranteeing that even people who are limited in English proficiency understand the charges being made against them and also are able to have a significant chance to be heard. In such situations, language is essentially a proxy for discriminating against a person’s national origin; by neglecting to extend appropriate interpreters to an individual who has lack of English proficiency, courts essentially deny that person’s ability to have access to the benefits, services, or rights guaranteed to every other American. Unfortunately, for many of the people whose rights under Title VI are violated, there are no successful remedies, as indicated when a 2001 Supreme Court decision reversed several decades of precedent that protected rights guaranteed under Title VI.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Problem of Language Barriers in US Courts".
In fact, although interpreters are generally available in criminal cases in state courts, there is a lack of qualified translators available for civil cases. Such cases typically involve matters ranging from domestic violence problems to foreclosure proceedings; in a report summarizing language assistance to 35 states that have large immigrant populations, almost half of those states do not guarantee a court interpreter for civil cases (Chen, 2009.) That affects nearly 25 million people in the United States who have limited proficiency in English, 13 million of which live in those states. In other situations, certain states charge money for providing translators, and many immigrants live in areas that do not guarantee that the interpreters can speak English, can speak the language to be interpreted, or know how to interpret in the specialized courtroom setting (Chen, 2009.)
Despite the fact that denying language assistance to people who do not speak English is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, some states have different interpretations for court policies, and they are often driven by the increasing costs of providing such services. In cases that involve immigrants that have child custody issues, domestic violence issues, or other civil matters, the ability to express themselves accurately and articulately to the judge or lawyer can mean the difference between a family remaining together or dividing it up permanently. In addition, some states have clear guidelines that qualify people to act as court interpreters, while others do not, so that the availability of qualified interpreters varies greatly depending on the location of the court.
In a 2012 report conducted by the United States Department of Justice, several action steps were suggested for states to use as a guide to improve and implement their language access programs (State Justice Institute, 2012.) These steps include: identifying the need for language assistance at every point of contact in the courts; developing oversight of the programs that provide language access in the courts; implementing methods to oversee language assess programs; providing certification and training to translators; and looking into strategies to obtain more funding to provide such services.
Given all of the attention paid to the need for interpreters in courtrooms where English limited speakers are involved in court cases, have any of these efforts been successful? It appears that although there is a great deal still to be done about this issue, it has gained momentum in the last decade. This is evidenced by the fact that interpreters are growing in standing as officers of the court, and for the first time a language-based profession in the United States is actually ahead of countries like Canada (Matthew, 2013.) Using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as mentioned, mandated that state courts that receive any financial assistance must provide interpreters to people with Limited English Proficiency in both civil and criminal cases at absolutely no charge for the litigants. In addition, the courts must guarantee that interpreters are qualified to perform their duties by having essential language as well as interpretation skills.
There also have been several federal statutes enacted involving the need for court translations for people who have limited English-speaking abilities, such as the Court Interpreters Act of 1978 signed by Pres. Carter. This established the right of any individual involved in a court case to have an interpreter that is either certified or otherwise qualified as long as his ability to communicate or understand language is minimized because of a language barrier. In addition, in August, 2000, President Clinton issued an executive order known as “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”, which required that federal agencies take reasonable measures to give meaningful access to federally conducted programs and activities to people with Limited English Proficiency. Such measures have highlighted the recognition that people with limited English proficiency must have adequate interpreters in court in order to protect their constitutional rights of due process. Although clearly, much more needs to be done to guarantee that right to every person in the United States, there has been some advancement in this arena.
- Chen, M. (2009, July). Language Barriers in the Courtroom. Retrieved from Color Lines.com: http://colorlines.com
- Language Barrier. (2009, April). Retrieved from Southern Poverty Law Center.org: http://www.splcenter.org
- Matthew, G. (2013). Court Interpreting in the United States Revisited. Retrieved from International Association of Conference Interpreters (AII C): http://aiic.net
- State Justice Institute. (2012). National Call to Action: Access to Justice for Limited English Proficient Litigants, Creating Solutions to Language Barriers in State Courts. Williamsburg: the United States Department of Justice.
- Working with State Courts to Remove Language Barriers to Justice. (2012, June 15). Retrieved from United States Department Of Justice: http://www.justice.gov
