Barriers to Access in the Norwegian Criminal Justice System

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Kermit ◽  
Terje Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Barriers To Access ◽  
Interpreter Service ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Demand Changes

This chapter presents and discusses barriers that Deaf people who have Norwegian Sign Language as their first language face in encounters with the Norwegian criminal justice system. Since this system is based exclusively on spoken language, and mainly depends on the individual law professional’s ability to establish critical, self-reflective practices in each case, Deaf people’s legal safety, as demanded by the rule of law, cannot be taken for granted. Establishing a public, independent, professionalized sign language interpreter service in Norway, however, has helped to reduce risks for Deaf people. Independent interpreters can demand changes in the criminal justice system’s practices, thus making these practices more accessible to Deaf people. Empirical examples illustrating the interaction between Deaf people, law professionals, and interpreters are presented and analyzed. This interaction is less characterized by conflict and more by cooperation and mutual recognition, where both Deaf people and law professionals state their confidence and trust in their interpreters. The chapter concludes that structural change and organization, such as the establishment of an independent public interpreter service in Norway, trump general and well-meant inclusive intentions in organizations such as the Norwegian criminal justice system when it comes to secure Deaf peoples’ rights and the prevention of miscarriage of justice.

scholarly journals Safe in the Hands of the Interpreter? A Qualitative Study Investigating the Legal Protection of Deaf People Facing the Criminal Justice System in Norway

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Kermit ◽  
Odd Morten Mjøen ◽  
Terje Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
System A ◽  
Sign Language Interpreting

<p>Keywords</p><p>Criminal justice, Deaf, Sign Language, Interpreting, Profession</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Over the last thirty years Deaf people in Norway have obtained extensive rights to sign language interpreting. During this period, a public national interpreting service has been established to cope with the growing demands for interpreters. However, little is known about how this development has influenced interpreting in different contexts. This paper addresses questions concerning the legal protection of deaf people facing the criminal justice system. A central issue of concern is what kind of communicative barriers Deaf people encounter. An empirical study is presented where sixteen strategically recruited informants participated: nine sign language interpreters and seven representatives from the Norwegian criminal justice system. The methodological approach was qualitative, open-ended interviews. The results indicate that Deaf people benefit from the professionalization of the interpreters in many ways. At the same time, as a profession, interpreters have a responsibility for defining their role. It is questionable whether or not interpreters always make professional decisions in deaf people&rsquo;s best interest.</p>

scholarly journals Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sean J. Mallett
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Regional Disparity ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Synthesis Approach

<p>One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This paper will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the paper will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.</p>

How to Reduce Recidivism

2021 ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Kevin A. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Critical Importance ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Basic Level

Nearly everyone sent to prison will one day return to the community. This means that understanding recidivism is of critical importance to members of that community. At the most basic level, recidivism can be defined as “the reversion of an individual to criminal behavior after he or she has been convicted of a prior offense, sentenced, and (presumably) corrected.” Recidivism therefore requires that some sort of involvement with the criminal justice system has taken place, and that then the individual again comes into contact with the system after additional transgressions. Recidivism, in other words, is officially detected, repeat unlawful behavior.

scholarly journals Eavesdropping in the Iranian Criminal Justice System

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Mansour Rahmdel
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Full Protection

That the individual shall have full protection in person is a principle as old as the human beings life, but it has beenfound necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. As civilizationadvanced, an individual’s feelings and intellect, as well as his physical being, came within the scope of the legal“right to be let alone.”Iranian Constitution has guaranteed individual’s rights and freedom and has explicitly referred to forbiddance ofeavesdropping and interception of conversations in its article 25. Article 582 of Penal Code ratified in 1996 hascriminalized eavesdropping by the governmental officials. Article 104 of Criminal Procedure Code, which wasabolished in 2014, referred to eavesdropping under the judge’s order. Article 150 of new criminal procedure coderatified in 2014, and came into force in October 2014, has provided adequate safeguards to protect the individual’srights.

scholarly journals Threaten Sentencing Enhancement, Coerce Plea, (Wash, Rinse,) Repeat

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-302
Author(s):  
Wes Reber Porter
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Trojan Horse ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Clean Break ◽  
The Individual

Our American criminal justice system is too often described as broken. It was not a clean break in a single, isolated location. Instead, our criminal justice system suffers from many, many little nicks, bumps, and bruises at the hands of its keepers. The evolution of sentencing enhancements within our criminal justice system represents the latest nagging, reoccurring injury. In the ultimate Trojan horse to criminal defendants, the Supreme Court sought to protect the individual rights of the accused with its recent decisions on sentencing enhancements. But at the hands of lawmakers, the judiciary, and prosecutors, criminal defendants suffer more. Our criminal justice system also suffers from practices related to sentencing enhancements and the resulting wave of wrongful convictions by guilty plea.

scholarly journals Regulacje normatywne dotyczące ochrony praw jednostki w irlandzkim procesie karnym

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-98
Author(s):  
Izabela Jankowska-Prochot
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual

This article aims to bring closer knowledge on respecting and protecting rights and freedoms of the individual in Ireland. The author presents the evolution of the source of Irish criminal law and criminal justice system in that country. The influence of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights is also discussed. The text is based on relevant Irish statues and opinions of the country’s jurisprudence.

scholarly journals Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean J Mallett
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Regional Disparity ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Synthesis Approach

One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand, there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This article will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the "instinctive synthesis" approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the article will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document