Deaf Jurors
on Blog From Beyond (Rwanda), 26/Aug/2009 08:17, 34 days ago
Recently something in America came to my attention through theNational Association of the Deafe-list:North Carolina legislators again debated a bill that would permit deaf people to serve as jurors and require the provision of qualified interpreters. The bill was sent back to the Ways and Means Committee...The bill (SB 293) was presented, again, and was immediately challenged. The request to refer the bill back to the Ways and Means Committee, made by Representative Faison on July 16, 2009, was renewed and debated...There are a couple of links to the story:House not ready for deaf jurorsNorth Carolina Legislators Oppose Deaf JurorsOne of the most mind-numbing summations being:"if you're going to be in court and you're going to have your case heard, you want to make sure you're being heard," said Rep. Bill Faison, an Orange County Democrat.Amazing, this man made it through high school? Deary me.Anyway, the theme struck a slight chord in me as in 2007 I wrote my MA thesis on Deaf people as victims of crime in the British legal system, exploring their experiences of the police and courts.During my research I came across an interesting issue. In the UK there is also discrimination against Deaf jurors but not for the reason that 'they cannot hear'. In the UK there's a more complex issue involving the size of juries, introduced in the 70s. Here's an excerpt from my thesis explaining the matter:One thing that equality legislation has attempted to do has been to removed the discrimination preventing Deaf people from challenging majority perception. Deaf people themselves are now allowed to become lawyers (Deaf Lawyers UK, 2007) however, although there is no specific legislation preventing a Deaf person serving as a member of a jury (Criminal Justice Act, 2003), in 1999 a Deaf juror was released from serving because it was ruled that his interpreter counted as a 13th person and could not be present during deliberations (BBC News, 1999)....We have already seen that Deaf people are called as witnesses and, bar the issue of a 13th person on the jury, would be accepted as jurors...The point to remember though, is that all minority-language speakers requiring an interpreter as well as all people with mobility issues who require a physical aid, are excused from jury duty because of the 13th person rule which was introduced in the 1970s (Jury Central Summoning Bureau, 2007)...It also means that an orally deaf person who can communicate using hearing aids and lip-speaking, without the use of a physical aid or interpreter, can sit as a juror whereas Deaf signers cannot. This is rather an anomaly as the Ministry of Justice, in applying legislation written and owned by the Home Office, is itself in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act; although complaints have been received, no-one has yet brought a case against them on this point (Jury Central Summoning Bureau, 2007).Like I say, I wrote this in 2007 but to my knowledge nothing has changed and nobody has ever challenged the ruling by taking it through the disability discrimination act, which the 13th person rule clearly breaches and should therefore be repealed - my suggestion anyway ;)