Cultural misunderstanding may lead to more prosecution from the immigrant communities
by Abdi G. Elmi
Sunday, February 24, 2013
A married couple who lived together had disagreement on very minor family issues. The wife, a home stay mother who recently had a baby and dealing with post partum condition; did physically attacked her husband. She punched him on the face and left a bleeding lip. She was then afraid that her husband may respond to her and do harm to her. She then called 911. When she realized that her husband left her and went into another room in the house she hanged up the telephone before she spoke to the 911 operator. Apparently, she did not know by hanging up the phone will not stop her request for help. A few minutes later, police officer knocked the door and as the culture is the husband responded the door knock. The police saw from his face signs of injury and asked what happened to him and who did the injuries to him. Due to the husband’s limited English language he replied “she is crazy.” The police officers were not able to really understand the expression behind husband’s “she is crazy” response. The police officer immediately called crisis intervention from the local hospital with the assumption that the wife is mentally ill. The police asked medical professionals mental health evaluation for her. She was taken to the hospital and later charged with one count of domestic assault and two counts of disorderly conduct. The evaluation led to questions on her parenting capability and how she is able to take of her four children including three weeks old baby since she is mentally ill.
The husband admitted that he would better use another word that he would appropriately express his disapproval of his wife’s action but he never meant that she is mentally ill and needs treatment.
Another scenario on the same topic, Another day I was called to interpret on a jury trial for a defendant who is charged with domestic assault and a terroristic threat. The alleged victim claims the defendant assaulted her and threatened that he will kill her after their relationship became infertile. The process of jury began and first half of the day went well. When the county was in a recess and all of us waiting to resume the hearing, the assistant county attorney who was prosecuting the case approached me privately and asked what is mean by the word “I will kill you” in Somali. Do the person mean really killing the other person or it has got another meaning?
In Somali, The word “waan ku dilayaa” is common word that expresses disapproval and depends in the context that is used. For instance, when children playing around get angry from one another they say “waan ku dilayaa”. Even it is common to hear parent say to their children (“waan ku dilayaa” if you do so and so or if you do it again). When teens and adults get angry from each other they use “waan ku dialayaa” the same objective which they mean “I will beat you up”. It is obvious that the parents don’t mean killing their children but instead to show the child disapproval of his/her action and the consequence will be punishment.
The County attorney dismissed the terroristic threat count and charged the defendant with one count of domestic assault.
In the law enforcement or the in general public using the word “I will kill you” is not a joke and must be taken it seriously. It must be used all the means to prevent happening it but that is when is meant it. In many cultures, words are used interchangeably and sometimes may alert or give seriousness impression requires law enforcement to involve when interpreted into English have serious consequence while the danger is not there. The two above scenarios are classic examples of cultural misunderstanding that might happen between individuals with limited English and the law enforcement or justice system. It presents how a person easily be charged with a crime by not using proper wording in English or without interpreter.
I have no doubt that every language has words that has more than one meaning or the words in the language can be mistakenly misunderstood when literally translated into English but authorities need to be cautious before someone is charged with a crime and brought to the justice.
In my experience as a court interpreter, I have seen many cases that defendant is charged only because the law enforcement officer(s) did not understand what the defendant said in English or officers had no interpreters with them to help communicate with the parties involved cases. One officer’s case note read “suspect was mumbling when questioned and did not understand what he said”!
Even the use of interpreters sometimes doesn’t help as some of the immigrant feel that they don’t need an interpreter when they actually need an interpreter to help them in dealing with the courts and our justice system.
A significant number of middle-aged East African community members had formal education in their home countries and studied in their own languages. Some of them had an opportunity to attend English classes after they arrived in the United States. Others learned English through their daily activities within the mainstream community and were able to communicate with short conversations in English. Very few of them, however, have had the formal English language education or academic skills that would enable them to participate in a legal setting or a court hearing. Unfortunately, even those who master the English language suffer from a lack of the legal terminology they would normally need in the situation.
There is an unfortunate misperception in the community leading people to believe that if an individual is not speaking English and not dealing directly with the mainstream community (or justice system) that person is uncivilized. In many cases, attorneys may encounter a situation in which your client insists that he/she doesn’t need an interpreter while it is obvious to you as an attorney that he/she understands little of the message you want to convey to him/her. The question here is what you would do as attorney in such a situation. Will you consider your client’s suggestion that he/she doesn’t need an interpreter and leave him/her to face the consequences? I have been present in many court hearings where the client declined the use of interpreting services and the judge suggested that an interpreter be available in case the service is needed. It often happens that in the middle of the hearing, the need for an interpreter arises and this causes interruption to the hearing.
In a situation where your client suggests that he/she will not need an interpreter, I would suggest that attorneys use their better judgment and ask their clients a few background questions before they inform the court that their client doesn’t need an interpreter. For instance, attorneys may ask their client open- ended questions on his/her understanding of the U.S. judicial system, current issues in the news (not necessarily political), the last time that their client made a trip outside of the United States, the client’s experience of Minnesota weather, how the client adjusted after moving to the United States and so on. This can ensure that the client involved is sufficiently capable of understanding the language of the court. You need to assess your client’s ability to participate in court proceedings or communicate directly with the court. It is not enough to just accept/agree to your client’s intention of testifying in English only. You must consider safeguarding the best interests of your client and how your client’s testifying solely in English might help or damage his/her case. If the hearing is scheduled to take place in front of a jury, I would strongly argue that you advise your client to utilize interpreting services if they are available. I would also strongly argue that you advise your client to speak in his/her native language during testimony and hear all the evidences against your client and other testimony from the other parties involved in his/her native language as well.
I heard from the media the debate with or against on interpreting services provided by state and federal agencies for those their clients with limited English proficiency (LEP). One side of the isle debates if a person decides to live in this country the individual has the responsibility to learning the language and the culture. This group suggests that neither nor federal government should not spend text payers money in providing interpreting services to these individuals. The other side of the isle argues in order to make sure that new Americans are treated fair and equal the state should provide interpreting services for them.
Abdi G. Elmi, MA. is a court- certified Somali Interpreter in the State of Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected].