Should a person have to speak English in order to serve on a jury? What about someone who is blind or mute (i.e., unable to speak)?
If my writing on this particular topic seems disjointed, it is because I am trying to call attention to the fact that there is little to no logic in the guidelines for who can and cannot serve on a jury.
My recent jury duty summons states that to quality for jury service, an individual must be able to understand English. It doesn't specify that the juror should be able to actually speak English which of course would come in handy if the juror is to deliberate with his/her fellow jurors in an effective and efficient manner. Many non-native English speakers are able to understand English being spoken to them much better than they can speak it themselves. It also doesn't state the level at which a person should be able to understand English. Understanding the vocabulary and sentence structure of an attorney or expert witness is very different than understanding a friend who inquires via text message, “Yo were u at?”
It is time to put the entire matter of language to rest, and establish one specific language as the national and official language. Many people think that America already has such a thing, and that it is English, but that is not the case--there is none. For the moment, though, I want to address a different topic. My juror summons states that if a juror is deaf or hard of hearing, s/he can request an auxiliary aid or service. I am certainly in favor of this as I am against all forms of discrimination. Having said that, if a sign-language interpreter translates for the deaf person everything that is said in court, as well as everything that is said by the deaf person and his/her fellow jurors in the jury room, how is this any different than providing a language translator for someone who completely or partially does not understand English? As an aside, there is no mention at all for what accommodations will be provided to someone who is mute (i.e., unable to speak) yet is capable of hearing.
There is then the matter of people who are blind. Admittedly, some court cases depend very heavily upon the viewing of video footage, or the viewing of charts or diagrams, or the viewing of evidence which truly needs to be seen, but many cases do not depend upon this. I see nothing in my juror summons in the section of ADA accommodations which discusses any accommodations for the blind, although it is indirectly implied that a blind person can be excused from service by providing a doctor's statement of the physical disability. I see no reason why a blind person cannot be selected to serve on a case which only requires listening to verbal testimony. Admittedly, the blind person is unable to see the facial expressions and body language of the participants in a case, but that may very well make them an even more impartial juror than a sighted person.
This is all just something to think about. I truly think that our court districts just “make things up as they go,” and change policies as needed to bend to the will of current political pressures.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
My recent jury duty summons states that to quality for jury service, an individual must be able to understand English. It doesn't specify that the juror should be able to actually speak English which of course would come in handy if the juror is to deliberate with his/her fellow jurors in an effective and efficient manner. Many non-native English speakers are able to understand English being spoken to them much better than they can speak it themselves. It also doesn't state the level at which a person should be able to understand English. Understanding the vocabulary and sentence structure of an attorney or expert witness is very different than understanding a friend who inquires via text message, “Yo were u at?”
It is time to put the entire matter of language to rest, and establish one specific language as the national and official language. Many people think that America already has such a thing, and that it is English, but that is not the case--there is none. For the moment, though, I want to address a different topic. My juror summons states that if a juror is deaf or hard of hearing, s/he can request an auxiliary aid or service. I am certainly in favor of this as I am against all forms of discrimination. Having said that, if a sign-language interpreter translates for the deaf person everything that is said in court, as well as everything that is said by the deaf person and his/her fellow jurors in the jury room, how is this any different than providing a language translator for someone who completely or partially does not understand English? As an aside, there is no mention at all for what accommodations will be provided to someone who is mute (i.e., unable to speak) yet is capable of hearing.
There is then the matter of people who are blind. Admittedly, some court cases depend very heavily upon the viewing of video footage, or the viewing of charts or diagrams, or the viewing of evidence which truly needs to be seen, but many cases do not depend upon this. I see nothing in my juror summons in the section of ADA accommodations which discusses any accommodations for the blind, although it is indirectly implied that a blind person can be excused from service by providing a doctor's statement of the physical disability. I see no reason why a blind person cannot be selected to serve on a case which only requires listening to verbal testimony. Admittedly, the blind person is unable to see the facial expressions and body language of the participants in a case, but that may very well make them an even more impartial juror than a sighted person.
This is all just something to think about. I truly think that our court districts just “make things up as they go,” and change policies as needed to bend to the will of current political pressures.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents