 |
| Tracey A. Bone |
The most appropriate conduit for clear communication between a Deaf person whose first language is Sign Language and a hearing person whose first language is spoken English is through a certified English/Sign Language interpreter.
Alena Chubarova: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
In general, people who are hard of hearing (“small-d” deaf) have little or no functional hearing, view their hearing loss as a disability, and communicate through spoken English using hearing assistive devices. Those who are Deaf are individuals who are medically deaf or hard of hearing but who view their deafness as part of their identity, not a disability. They identify as a member of the collectivist Deaf community, with a shared culture, values, society, and a common language, namely a signed language).
Around the world there are approximately 300 different Sign Languages, all visual languages with unique rules of grammar, syntax, and word order (NAD, 2024). In Canada, the Accessible Canada Act (Bill C-81) recognizes American Sign Language (ASL), Quebec Sign Language, known in French as Langue des signes du Quebec (LSQ), and Indigenous Sign Languages as the primary languages for communication with Deaf persons in Canada.
The most effective conduit of communication between a Deaf Sign Language user and a spoken English-language user is through a certified English/Sign Language Interpreter. The Canadian Association of Sign Languages Interpreters and its members “uphold the highest standards of professional integrity, competence, and ethics.”
They strive to ensure all parties in the conversation receive full access to the conversation. It is not sufficient or appropriate to invite a family member, friend or other inmate to serve as an informal interpreter for any Sign Language user at any stage of the criminal justice process, from engagement with law enforcement, in prisons, with one’s lawyer, in courtrooms, during incarceration and upon conditional release. Most family members, friends and fellow inmates lack the high-quality skills necessary to ensure the language rights of the Deaf person are met. More importantly, to engage the services of a family member, friend or inmate violates the confidentiality of communication between professional and client.
The youngest sister of a Deaf adult, I learned Sign Language initially through my brother, and later through formal training. Conversationally fluent in ASL, I engaged with Deaf offenders directly in Sign Language during my 28-year employ with the Correctional Service of Canada. In one case, I supervised a Deaf offender from an isolated community.
The only Deaf person in the community, with no opportunity for employment and little opportunity for social engagement, he developed a significant alcohol problem. Most of his 45-plus convictions were offences against policing authorities who approached him from behind when attempting to intervene in his erratic, alcohol-fueled behaviour in the community. His final sentence was a federal one.
As an ASL interpreter was not made available during incarceration, he was not able to attend programming to reduce his risk of reoffending. Denied all forms of earned release, he was released on statutory release and assigned to the writer for supervision.
While his release was not without challenges, he and I were able to communicate in his first language of ASL and resolve issues before they resulted in problematic or criminal behaviour. Successful two-way communication allowed him to successfully complete his sentence under supervision.
In addition to a certified ASL Interpreter, additional factors are necessary to facilitate communication. This includes room layout (i.e., the ASL interpreter sits beside the speaking person so that the Deaf person can view both the ASL interpreter and speaker at the same time); and adequate lighting (i.e., the room should be sufficiently lit but not overly bright as this can cause eye strain).
A Deaf person with low literacy in Sign Language may also require a Deaf interpreter (DI). The DI adjusts the communication of the ASL English interpreter to the skill level of that Deaf person, facilitating effective communication across skill level.
In all cases when an interpreter is involved during legal matters, the professional should direct their conversation to the Deaf client themself, not the interpreter. To direct the conversation to the Interpreter marginalizes the Deaf person and excludes them from the conversation.
Failure to ensure effective communication between a hearing and Deaf Sign Language user violates that Deaf person’s basic rights to communication. In 1998, I explored the barriers for Deaf offenders in the hearing criminal justice system. In 2018, a report for Justice Canada found identical barriers and gaps.
In 2024, these barriers continue to exist. Deaf and hard of hearing offenders have constitutional rights to access. Legal professionals throughout the criminal justice system have a responsibility to seek training as necessary and incorporate effective strategies to ensure Deaf and hard of hearing offenders have access to communication that meet their basic human rights and facilitates social justice.
Tracey A. Bone, MSW, PhD, RSW is an associate professor in the faculty of social work at the University of Manitoba, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses. Contact her at Tracey.bone@umanitoba.ca.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.