Deaf, mute, illiterate man tried on drug trafficking charges

[cpl_crud]

I actaully wonder how many court cases have gone the "wrong" way due to this effect. I know that even now I still make mistakes in Japanese that confuse the hell out of people. When I deconstruct what I've said it's because I've used an English phrase and done the word-for-word thing. Or when a word just doesn't fit in another language (to use the over-used example of "Ganbaru")

Of course this case is right out there. And I find it easy to sympathise with the guy to some extent (slightly off topic, ElisaMasah you're way out of your league here). But when you read the quote from the Public Prosecutor about the guy that raped two children and found himself in the same situation. Being a bad person has nothing to do with your abilty to communicate.

I would hope that the modern education system has come far enough to cope with this, but I am a cynic. I know that people will fall through the cracks. And that's really a little depressing. How do you teach someone anything when everything we know is so wrapped up in language?


Definately ponderous, dude.

[ElisaMasah]

ElisaMasah you're way out of your league here

You know this is one of that awnkward moment when that little incident on the Tower of Babel start to show.
I've no way of understand what this way of speak mean ... is beyhond my poor understanding of English.

I'm sorry (and to be clear I'm not being sarcastic I'm truly sorry I can't understand you).

[cpl_crud]

I meant that in terms of being able to communicate (or not communicate) then your example of "feeling like the Deaf/Mute/Illiterate man" is on a completely different level.
Of course, these few posts show that you had difficulty understanding me, but I have the opportunity to explain myself to you.

The man in question in the OP does not have that opportunity. And that's a little sad. To compare yourself to that is like saying "I understand what it is like to be paralysed from the neck down. I once broke my leg and I had to use a wheelchair for a week." The difference is just too large to allow you to make a comparison.

[ElisaMasah]

The difference is just too large to allow you to make a comparison.

Yes and No, but We use two totally different sistem to define our perception on reality so I see where we can't make comparison.

[Silentcook]

This is one good example of the reasons why I'm fascinated enough with the finer points of the code we call "languages", enough to make dealing with that my hobby.

Also Caesius, your levels of research on this indicate that you're turning into me. Be very afraid.

[Caesius]

Examples abound where the interpreters’ struggles to match both form and
function had a significant effect. In a rape prosecution of a Hmong man, for example,
the interpreters failed to voice English equivalents to derogatory terms used by the victim,
a Hmong woman, in her testimony. See Timothy Dunnigan & Bruce T. Downing,
Legal Interpreting on Trial: A Case Study, in TRANSLATION AND THE LAW 93, 94-98 (Marshall
Morris ed., 1995) (discussing State v. Her, 510 N.W.2d 218, 222-23 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1994)). There, the convicted defendant failed to convince the appeals court that
the interpreters’ consistent choices to interpret the victim’s speech in accordance with
the prosecution’s portrayal of her as a shy, naive, and innocent Asian woman gave him a
right to a new trial with better interpreters, despite the appellate court’s agreement that
the interpreters’ less complete and less graphic account hurt the defendant. Id. at 104.

Although this case didn't involve any deaf people, since the paper itself deals with issues concerning MLS deaf persons, this got me wondering: When a deaf person has sex, what counts as consensual sex and what counts as rape? How does a deaf person give consent to a hearing person or vice-versa? If a deaf person did not get sufficient sexual education to understand that e.g. sex makes babies, sex gives you diseases, and condoms prevent both, can they legally give consent?

I'd imagine these issues would multiply tenfold when dealing with an MLS deaf person. Not only would they presumably be more likely to commit crimes without knowing why what they did was wrong, but they would also be much more easily taken advantage of and they might not even know that they were a victim of a crime.

[cpl_crud]

When you think about it, the situation you've describef is statutory rape. They have many of the same principals; one party abuses the other's trust to their own advantage.
Conceivably this could also extend as far as saying hearing people without the access to sexual education could fall into that category...

[Caesius]

Well in that case I don't know how you'd go about prosecuting someone who had sex with someone ignorant about what sex is. If they genuinely didn't know that the person they were sleeping with wasn't educated about sex for whatever reason and their "victim" would outwardly appear to any reasonable person capable of providing consent then how is he a criminal? How is it a crime to assume someone over the age of 18 possesses essential common knowledge?

Though, I suppose if they did it bareback and the knowledgeable one inquired at any point whether or not they should use a condom, whether or not they're guilty of a criminal lapse in judgment would depend on how their partner reacted to the question. Probably the first thing the prosecution would do is try to get him (or maybe her?) to admit that he asked about using a condom and his partner's reaction clearly indicated that she didn't know what he was talking about. However, I can't imagine neglecting to ask your partner about using a condom would be a crime, so if he really didn't ask then assuming nothing else emerges that counts against him then I bet he'd be acquitted. And of course, if he did use a condom, then there's no case against him.


However, I was mainly pondering how someone who is deaf (or worse, MLS deaf) would express consent, rather than how an otherwise normal person who doesn't know "penis + vagina = babies" wouldn't be able to give "informed consent." Obviously no reasonable person should assume that an MLS deaf person would be able to give informed consent if the person couldn't prove that they could. It gets a bit iffier when talking about someone who's deaf and illiterate but knows sign language though -- are deaf people who know sign significantly more likely to not know about sex than someone who's just plain illiterate?

And with someone who's deaf but literate and informed, sure, you could think of situations where there's obviously consent, but with the deaf there's surely more opportunity for misread signals, and it's probably also more difficult for them to express "no" without physically throwing off their partner.

[Mirage_GSM]

I don't think the portion of deaf people who are not educated about sex is significantly higher than the portion of hearing people who aren't educated about sex. *
And there's other ways than (sign) language to express consent very eloquently...

*I remember a case here in Germany a few years ago when a couple who had been married for several years consulted a doctor inquiring why they didn't have any babies. After some questioning the doctor found out that they didn't have sex... (Both of them could hear perfectly well, but were brought up in a very religious environment.)