While continuing my research the further in depth more questions began to arise. Moving closer to more recent years, allowed for more sources overall however still presented many limits. Many of the cases are currently still be reviewed or are going through the legal process currently. This was one of the challenges I faced while completing this research.
I began to contemplate what factors play a role in the shootings that perhaps aren’t as obvious or as apparent as race or gender. One factor that I began considering is mental health. I became curious as to what the mental state of both the officer who committed the shooting and the victim of the shooting was on the date of the shooting.
I was curious to how many of these victims had diagnosed or undiagnosed illnesses that led to their victimization at the hands of police? Perhaps if these illnesses were diagnosed or treated the victim would have never been in the situation to get shot or injured in the first place. On the other hand, how many police officers had diagnosed or undiagnosed illnesses that made them more prone to the discharging of their weapon? As a psychology minor having basic knowledge that mental health impairs decision making. I came to the realization that there is a need for research in this topic. Mental health is stigmatized in social media. It is a very delicate topic, therefore leaving a hole in research on this aspect. The mental health of the officer, who was involved in the shooting might present certain symptoms of this social issue. Associating mental health with law enforcement might further cause tensions between law enforcement and citizens.
One take away from this project, which I really enjoyed was being able to use my knowledge from Criminal Justice and Psychology to look at aspects a certain way with certain perspectives. It provided different types of insights and complimented my work.
Moving forward these questions and thoughts are ones that I will keep in mind when drawing overall conclusions of the research. I plan on continuing my work in this research because it is imperative to my field and also current to this time period.
My research consists of finding the facts on the litigation that takes place after police shootings in the United States. As a Criminal Justice major on the path to becoming a lawyer this research fascinates me because it involves my area of study, criminal law. I started off this research project with a few misconceptions. One of them being, how easy I thought the information I was trying to find would come to me. My faculty mentor and I started with cases from 2009. Quickly realizing I was ending up with more questions than answers, I decided I would move down to a more recent date. I began realizing that the probable answer to the lack of information is the pro-activeness of media from six years ago which evidently is not the same as it is today. After countless hours of searching through articles and find very few facts I decided I had to take another step further.
I realized if I wanted answers I had to ask questions, but who would have the answers to these questions and where? That’s when I was certain, that although it was not asked of me to, I had to begin making calls. I began calling various police departments across the county asking for public records of the incidents. After speaking to various people, police officers, sergeants, clerks etc.. and getting transferred to various departments I would finally get sent to the correct point of contact. This process is difficult in the sense that each police department and county has different acts and laws on the information that they make available to the public.
For example, In California thanks to the freedoms of information act I was able to put a request in for a particular case that happened in Moreno Valley. Moreno Valley falls under the jurisdiction of the Riverdale Sherrif’s Media and Information Bureau. I have yet to hear back with the answer to my request. I am waiting anxiously to see where this leads and me and how many more phone calls I have to make.
Being a researcher goes beyond reading and writing, it is about going above and beyond in the pursuit of answers. We are still hopeful to be able to find correlations between the lawsuits and the demographics of the subjects involved in the shootings.
The first step of the scientific method is to find a topic of interest and formulate a question you want to answer. Having already found the topic we, Professor Merton and I, are going to be conducting the research for, I am reading material and gaining as much insight and knowledge of what information is already other there. Professor Merton showered me with packets of information and recently sent me an article that I thought was too good not to share. The title of the article is the title of today’s blog post, I highly recommend you look it up and read it. Right below the title of the article there is a picture of a sign posted at the door with court rules/reminders. The middle one says “interpreters are NOT provided in this court. You must provide your own.” The implication of this sign is huge because it is an accurate representation of many courts in this country and shows the lack of a significant resource and tool of important use to many. The article then starts off by sharing a story of a courtroom proceeding in Chesterfield, Virginia where an interpreter translated the world violation to “violacion”. Meaning the man was no longer being accused of a traffic violation, but instead of rape. This meant the crime went from being an infraction to a felony one and took the penalty from being a fee to possible life behind bars. When reading this article my initial assumptions were confirmed. The translation of a word carries vast weight in a court room, and this is being overlooked. This story is an example of many stories around the country. Like the article states these mistakes are common in state and local courts, due to the fact that many states and localities don’t use tested court interpreters and ignore federal rules. The article then goes on to talk about the problems that come with this such as people being unable to protect or enforce their legal rights due to language barrier and the reliance on an interpreter. The federal courts have a competitive test that certifies court interpreters stating they are qualified to translate in a court room. The state and local courts test isn’t as demanding, and don’t certify one’s ability to interpret, therefor allowing many uncertified interpreters to serve in a court room. The article reinforces the idea that the interpreters’ job is so crucial not just for the person that doesn’t speak English, but for the lawyer and judge to be able to efficiently complete their job as well.
When there aren’t any interpreters readily available, Judges ask of anyone in the court room or a family member of the defendants to interpret for them. This leaves the interpretation, to in some cases a stranger, someone who is not knowledgeable of the case, and someone who doesn’t have particular interest that the translation goes well or the benefits of the individuals in mind. In some cases interpreters who aren’t certified are just bi-lingual speakers, like the article says, this presents problems of its own because although these people speak the language doesn’t make their vocabulary extensive or mean that they are able to communicate in “technical legal language.” The certification measures someone’s language skills, vocabulary and ability to interpret at a good pace.
The article finishes off by stating the additional problems that this brings to the whole system. Reading this article solidified my passion and desire to complete the research for this study. A word, the translation and every aspect that goes into the interpretation in a court room can mark the difference of consequences to the life, liberty, and family and property interest of an individual. With 8 states currently not certifying interpreters our research is crucial and it must be done in a timely manner.
Beitsch, Rebecca. “In Many Courtrooms, Bad Interpreters Can Mean Justice Denied.” In Many Courtrooms, Bad Interpreters Can Mean Justice Denied. The Pew Charitable Trusts, 17 Aug. 2016. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.
When Professor Merton and I first met, we had some trouble deciding which direction or topic we wanted to focus our research on, especially since a research project can be so vague and taken in so many directions. We knew that we wanted to conduct research that would have real impact, and bring new knowledge to a dynamic field of current interest while alleviating the questions and concerns of both professionals and average citizens. Based on Professor Merton’s current work and experience with the Immigration Justice Clinic at Pace Law School, as well as my personal background, we decided to explore the role of interpreters and translators in the practice of Immigration law.
We started brainstorming and identifying issues that could be addressed. Interpreters play such an essential role in Immigration Court and before immigration agencies. Their interpretation and translation of testimony, stories, facts and events are the foundation of the decision-making of judges and immigration agents. Interpreters become the voice of clients. They also facilitate the exchange of communication between the client and his/her lawyer. Yet because the government is not required to provide interpretation and translation services during most interactions with immigrants, many of these interpreters are volunteers, neither trained nor required to possess any particular background or knowledge. Often they are children or youth pressed into communicating about terribly serious and difficult subjects on behalf of their beloved family members. This could be and frequently is traumatic even for mature professionals; for the “informal interpreters” who must cope with such great responsibility despite a complete lack of preparation, it is an enormous challenge.
What is it that makes the difference between a good and bad interpreter? How do emotion and feeling come into play when interpreting? What training or knowledge would be of use or, on the contrary, detrimental to develop more competent and comfortable informal interpreters? With all these questions in mind we decided to work on creating some type of guide or relatively rapid training program to enable informal interpreters to achieve a much higher level of skill, technique, and professionalism. We will test our guidance model on informal interpreters who are assisting clients of the Law School’s immigration clinics, and based on their feedback and experience, refine and amplify the scope of our orientation and teaching materials.