While federal law requires that criminal and civil courts provide an interpreter for people with limited English proficiency, the New York Times reports that in many states, interpreters are scarce in civil cases. In 35 states with the largest immigrant populations, 46% do not require that an interpreter be provided, and 80% fail to guarantee that the court will pay for the services.

Stakes can be just as high in civil cases as criminal, and a person’s inability to articulate his case, or understand what’s going on in the courtroom, can mean the difference between justice and injustice. Wisconsin appellate court judge Richard S. Brown explains:

“Civil cases can involve denial of constitutional property rights, termination of parental rights, statutory rights to be free from harassment and stalking, consumer transactions, foreclosures and a host of other matters,” Judge Brown said.

“If a person cannot understand what is happening in the courtroom proceeding, an unfair result might occur. And that is contradictory to what we want our courts to do: administer justice, fairly and impartially.”

Costs for interpretation services have risen over the past few years, which prevents debt-ridden states like California from complying with the policy. Anti-immigrant groups are also in opposition, believing that it sends a message that it’s “O.K. not to learn English.”

Read more about the debate in the full article.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am and is filed under Interpretation, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.