A Right to Civic Duty: Jury Duty for the Deaf

Shoshana Paget
Ph.D. in Social and Cultural Analysis
Department of Sociology & Anthropology
Concordia University

1 June 2020

Introduction

In 2012, Gaye Lyons received a jury summons for a trial in Queensland, Australia. Intent on performing her civic duty, Lyons was shocked to discover she would not be allowed because she was deaf. Lyons would have required an Auslan (Australian Sign Language) interpreter to communicate but was denied this service. Lyons launched a case against the Queensland Government arguing discrimination and attempting to win the right for deaf persons to take part in jury duty. In 2016, the High Court ruled that Queensland law did not allow for an Auslan interpreter to assist while the jury was in session, so Lyons would be incapable of performing her duties. The Queensland Government also raised concerns about the accuracy of Auslan translations in the courtroom. In response, Lyons stated that “to say that interpreters could not relay information accurately, that was the living end, that was the last straw for me…It wasn’t a nice feeling to know that inherently—interpreters—that their translations were not correct, it was a terrible thing to say.”

The High Court and Government’s statements reference several stereotypes about the deaf and about sign language as compared to spoken language. Although it has been repeatedly proven false, the idea that people who cannot hear are “dumb” persists and without question impacts deaf persons being accepted into jury service – regardless that any person who serves on an Australian jury must be able to read and write in English (Napier & Spencer 2017: 4; Ree 1992: 201).

Deaf persons have been able to perform jury duty in the U.S. since 1973, in New Zealand since 1981, and in Canada since 1998 (Boyle 2011: 11-20). That the law allows for a deaf person to serve on a jury, however, does not mean that a deaf person has actually served nor does it mean that deaf jurors aren’t dismissed based on misconceptions about their intelligence and capabilities (Bertrand et al 2017: 4; Napier and Spencer 2017: 4).

The Case in Canada

In 2012, Statistics Canada found that nearly 14% of Canadians have a disability and that half of Canadians will experience a disability at some point in their lives. Despite this, the number of people with disabilities serving on juries is low. This lack of representation is problematic for the idea that the jury serves as representative of the Canadian population and for the guarantee of being tried by a jury of peers. Disability accommodations are provided for deaf jurors, however, the legislation enforcing the inclusion of deaf Canadians on juries is limited. The Criminal Code, s. 627 states that the judge may allow for a juror “with a physical disability who is otherwise qualified to serve as a juror to have technical, personal, interpretative or other supportive services,” which can include reading aids, sign language interpreters and assistive services.

Figure 1: Cartoon concept of deaf people not needed in jury service. Image Source: Deaf Reality Series.

Bertrand et al note, however, that while s. 627 allows for the inclusion of deaf jurors, it does not assure representation on juries, only providing services once a juror is selected. S. 672 also doesn’t protect deaf persons from peremptory challenges which can be used to remove potential jurors without reason. Instead, a prosecutor can challenge the participation of a deaf juror on the grounds that “even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative, or other support services, the juror is physically incapable of performing [their duty] adequately” (Bertrand et al 2017: 4). Challenges exercised against deaf jurors on these grounds are often based on the idea that without being able to hear, deaf jurors do not have the intelligence or the physically capabilities for jury duty.

Translation

While deaf persons have been legally able to serve on juries in several countries for many years, the concern about the ability of the deaf to comprehend the case without being able to hear has reemerged, evidenced by the use of preemptory challenges to remove deaf potential jurors from the jury pool (Boyle 2011: 35). This misconception about deaf persons’ capabilities often manifests as concern that sign language cannot accurately translate legal concepts. However, a 2005 study which investigated if sign language users could understand jury instructions well enough to fulfil jury duty, found that instructions could be translated with 87.5% accuracy. This was found to be acceptable by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (Napier and McEwen 2015: 25).

Figure 2: Auslan alphabet poster. Image source: Deaf Children Australia.

Another study in 2017 investigated the capacity of deaf people to serve as jurors assisted by Auslan interpreters. Jury instructions were translated from spoken English to Auslan and back to determine if the legal concepts could be accurately translated. The study found that deaf jurors showed no more difficulty in understanding instructions and concepts than hearing jurors. In responding to true or false questions, for instance, the difference in the number of correct questions for deaf and hearing persons was statistically insignificant (Napier and Spencer 2017: 11).

Language & Capability

And yet, very few deaf jurors have actually served. This is partially due to the misconceptions about deaf persons’ intelligence and capabilities as well as misunderstandings of how sign functions as a language. This is exhibited by the statement given by the Queensland Government, and the dismissal of deaf persons from jury pools on the grounds that even with assistance a deaf person is incapable of performing jury duty (Bertand et al 2017: 4). The implications of this is that deaf persons are not intelligent enough and lack the capacity for jury duty. As Oliver Sacks notes, those who are prelingually deaf are often at greater risk of being seen as unintelligent due to their difficulty with spoken language. That a prelingually deaf person cannot hear, however, does not mean that they cannot access language, only that the language is in a different medium. Studies have shown that children who are raised using sign language develop intellectually and socially at the same rate as their hearing counterparts (Ree 1999: 160; Sacks 1989: 45, 57). As such, the use of sign language in no way indicates that a person is unintelligent, nor that sign language cannot be used to accurately convey the happenings of the court.

Figure 3: Langue des Signes Quebecois (LSQ), the sign language alphabet used in Quebec. Image Source: Office de personnes handicapées.

Saying that sign language cannot accurately communicate legal concepts would be akin to saying that courtroom proceedings cannot be accurately translated into French or German. The error is in thinking that sign is simply a translation device, a way of converting spoken English into visible words. While Sign Exact English is used and exactly replicates spoken English words, signed languages like Auslan or ASL are fully developed with their own vocabulary and grammatical structures (Ree 1999: 202; Sacks 1989: 72). Sacks demonstrates this, recounting a story of hearing parents learning to sign with their deaf daughter:

The elaborate linear structures of spoken English [didn’t] translate into interesting sign language, so we had to reorient the way we thought to produce visual sentences…We are excited and simulated an ingenious and sensible language which has such beauty and imagination. It is a delight to realize that Charlotte’s [the daughter] signing reflects visual thought patterns… (Sacks 1989: 70)

As with Charlotte, deaf persons who serve on juries have access to the same depth of language, which has already been proven to be able to translate legal concepts (Napier and Spencer 2017: 11). Deaf people, especially those prelingually deaf might, as Charlotte did, think differently than hearing people but this does not mean that they are unintelligent but rather that they can bring a unique perspective to jury deliberation.

Conclusion

While deaf people can serve on juries in Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, many potential deaf jurors are barred from juries based on misconceptions of their intelligence, capabilities and uncertainty about the accurately of sign language. Several studies, however, indicate that deaf participants performed as well as hearing participants in comprehending jury instructions and complex legal concepts that can be critical to a jury’s verdict (Napier and Spencer 2017: 20). The continued dismissal of deaf persons from jury services is often based around the idea that deaf people are unintelligent and that, not being able to hear, they will not be able to fulfil their duties. This ignores the abundant evidence that deaf people are just as intelligent as those with hearing and can bring different perspectives to jury deliberations. Concerns that sign language cannot accurately translate legal concepts has also been shown as false and indicates a misunderstanding of the depth and versatility of sign as a form of language. In the end it is old stereotypes and misconceptions not lack of intelligence which bars deaf persons from taking part in jury duty—a civic duty which deaf persons are often willing and able to perform yet remains, for the most part, inaccessible.

All links accessed 1 June 2020

Bibliography

Bertrand, Michelle I, and Lauren Menzie. “The Jury Representativeness Guarantee in Canada: The Curious Case of Disability and Justice Making.” Journal of Ethics in Mental Health 10 (2017): 1–23. Print.

Boyle, Ciara. “A Consideration of the Eligibility of Blind or Deaf People for Jury Service in Ireland.” Hibernian Law Journal 10.1 (2011): 1–40. Print.

Napier, Jemina, and Alastair McEwin. “Do Deaf People Have the Right to Serve as Jurors in Australia?” Alternative Law Journal 40.1 (2015): 23–27. Web.

Napier, Jemina, and David Spencer. “Jury Instructions: Comparing Hearing and Deaf Jurors’ Comprehension via Direct or Mediated Communication.” International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 24.1 (2017): 1–29. Web.

Ree, Jonathan. I See Voice. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999. Print.

Sacks, Oliver. Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Print.

Further Reading

Bleyer, Kristi et al. “Feature Access to Jury Service for Persons with Disabilities.” Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 19.2 (1995): 249–254. Print.

Brisbane Supreme and District Courts by Silvia Micheli and Antony Moulis, n.d.

Lepofsky, David. “Equal Access to Canada’s Judicial System for Persons with Disabilities – A Time for Reform.” National Journal of Constitutional Law 2.3 (1995): 183–204. Print.

Mulcahy, Linda. “Architects of Justice: The Politics of Courtroom Design.” Social and Legal Studies 16.3 (2007): 383–403. Web.

Spaulding, Norman W. “The Enclosure of Justice.” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 24.1 (2012): 311–343. Print.

Tait, David. “Glass Cages in the Dock?: Presenting the Defendant to the Jury.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 86.2 (2011): 467–496. Web.

The Changing Face of Justice by Graham Brown

A Right to Civic Duty: Jury Duty for the Deaf

Shoshana Paget

Ph.D. in Social and Cultural Analysis

Department of Sociology & Anthropology

Concordia University

1 June 2020

Introduction

In 2012, Gaye Lyons received a jury summons for a trial in Queensland, Australia. Intent on performing her civic duty, Lyons was shocked to discover she would not be allowed because she was deaf. Lyons would have required an Auslan (Australian Sign Language) interpreter to communicate but was denied this service. Lyons launched a case against the Queensland Government arguing discrimination and attempting to win the right for deaf persons to take part in jury duty. In 2016, the High Court ruled that Queensland law did not allow for an Auslan interpreter to assist while the jury was in session, so Lyons would be incapable of performing her duties. The Queensland Government also raised concerns about the accuracy of Auslan translations in the courtroom. In response, Lyons stated that “to say that interpreters could not relay information accurately, that was the living end, that was the last straw for me…It wasn’t a nice feeling to know that inherently—interpreters—that their translations were not correct, it was a terrible thing to say.”

The High Court and Government’s statements reference several stereotypes about the deaf and about sign language as compared to spoken language. Although it has been repeatedly proven false, the idea that people who cannot hear are “dumb” persists and without question impacts deaf persons being accepted into jury service – regardless that any person who serves on an Australian jury must be able to read and write in English (Napier & Spencer 2017: 4; Ree 1992: 201).

Deaf persons have been able to perform jury duty in the U.S. since 1973, in New Zealand since 1981, and in Canada since 1998 (Boyle 2011: 11-20). That the law allows for a deaf person to serve on a jury, however, does not mean that a deaf person has actually served nor does it mean that deaf jurors aren’t dismissed based on misconceptions about their intelligence and capabilities (Bertrand et al 2017: 4; Napier and Spencer 2017: 4).

The Case in Canada

In 2012, Statistics Canada found that nearly 14% of Canadians have a disability and that half of Canadians will experience a disability at some point in their lives. Despite this, the number of people with disabilities serving on juries is low. This lack of representation is problematic for the idea that the jury serves as representative of the Canadian population and for the guarantee of being tried by a jury of peers. Disability accommodations are provided for deaf jurors, however, the legislation enforcing the inclusion of deaf Canadians on juries is limited. The Criminal Code, s. 627 states that the judge may allow for a juror “with a physical disability who is otherwise qualified to serve as a juror to have technical, personal, interpretative or other supportive services,” which can include reading aids, sign language interpreters and assistive services.

Figure 1: Cartoon concept of deaf people not needed in jury service. Image Source: Deaf Reality Series.

Bertrand et al note, however, that while s. 627 allows for the inclusion of deaf jurors, it does not assure representation on juries, only providing services once a juror is selected. S. 672 also doesn’t protect deaf persons from peremptory challenges which can be used to remove potential jurors without reason. Instead, a prosecutor can challenge the participation of a deaf juror on the grounds that “even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative, or other support services, the juror is physically incapable of performing [their duty] adequately” (Bertrand et al 2017: 4). Challenges exercised against deaf jurors on these grounds are often based on the idea that without being able to hear, deaf jurors do not have the intelligence or the physically capabilities for jury duty.

Translation

While deaf persons have been legally able to serve on juries in several countries for many years, the concern about the ability of the deaf to comprehend the case without being able to hear has reemerged, evidenced by the use of preemptory challenges to remove deaf potential jurors from the jury pool (Boyle 2011: 35). This misconception about deaf persons’ capabilities often manifests as concern that sign language cannot accurately translate legal concepts. However, a 2005 study which investigated if sign language users could understand jury instructions well enough to fulfil jury duty, found that instructions could be translated with 87.5% accuracy. This was found to be acceptable by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (Napier and McEwen 2015: 25).

Another study in 2017 investigated the capacity of deaf people to serve as jurors assisted by Auslan interpreters. Jury instructions were translated from spoken English to Auslan and back to determine if the legal concepts could be accurately translated. The study found that deaf jurors showed no more difficulty in understanding instructions and concepts than hearing jurors. In responding to true or false questions, for instance, the difference in the number of correct questions for deaf and hearing persons was statistically insignificant (Napier and Spencer 2017: 11).

Figure 2: Auslan alphabet poster. Image source: Deaf Children Australia.

Language & Capability

A Right to Civic Duty: Jury Duty for the Deaf

Shoshana Paget

Ph.D. in Social and Cultural Analysis

Department of Sociology & Anthropology

Concordia University

1 June 2020

Introduction

In 2012, Gaye Lyons received a jury summons for a trial in Queensland, Australia. Intent on performing her civic duty, Lyons was shocked to discover she would not be allowed because she was deaf. Lyons would have required an Auslan (Australian Sign Language) interpreter to communicate but was denied this service. Lyons launched a case against the Queensland Government arguing discrimination and attempting to win the right for deaf persons to take part in jury duty. In 2016, the High Court ruled that Queensland law did not allow for an Auslan interpreter to assist while the jury was in session, so Lyons would be incapable of performing her duties. The Queensland Government also raised concerns about the accuracy of Auslan translations in the courtroom. In response, Lyons stated that “to say that interpreters could not relay information accurately, that was the living end, that was the last straw for me…It wasn’t a nice feeling to know that inherently—interpreters—that their translations were not correct, it was a terrible thing to say.”

The High Court and Government’s statements reference several stereotypes about the deaf and about sign language as compared to spoken language. Although it has been repeatedly proven false, the idea that people who cannot hear are “dumb” persists and without question impacts deaf persons being accepted into jury service – regardless that any person who serves on an Australian jury must be able to read and write in English (Napier & Spencer 2017: 4; Ree 1992: 201).

Deaf persons have been able to perform jury duty in the U.S. since 1973, in New Zealand since 1981, and in Canada since 1998 (Boyle 2011: 11-20). That the law allows for a deaf person to serve on a jury, however, does not mean that a deaf person has actually served nor does it mean that deaf jurors aren’t dismissed based on misconceptions about their intelligence and capabilities (Bertrand et al 2017: 4; Napier and Spencer 2017: 4).

The Case in Canada

In 2012, Statistics Canada found that nearly 14% of Canadians have a disability and that half of Canadians will experience a disability at some point in their lives. Despite this, the number of people with disabilities serving on juries is low. This lack of representation is problematic for the idea that the jury serves as representative of the Canadian population and for the guarantee of being tried by a jury of peers. Disability accommodations are provided for deaf jurors, however, the legislation enforcing the inclusion of deaf Canadians on juries is limited. The Criminal Code, s. 627 states that the judge may allow for a juror “with a physical disability who is otherwise qualified to serve as a juror to have technical, personal, interpretative or other supportive services,” which can include reading aids, sign language interpreters and assistive services.

Figure 1: Cartoon concept of deaf people not needed in jury service. Image Source: Deaf Reality Series.

Bertrand et al note, however, that while s. 627 allows for the inclusion of deaf jurors, it does not assure representation on juries, only providing services once a juror is selected. S. 672 also doesn’t protect deaf persons from peremptory challenges which can be used to remove potential jurors without reason. Instead, a prosecutor can challenge the participation of a deaf juror on the grounds that “even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative, or other support services, the juror is physically incapable of performing [their duty] adequately” (Bertrand et al 2017: 4). Challenges exercised against deaf jurors on these grounds are often based on the idea that without being able to hear, deaf jurors do not have the intelligence or the physically capabilities for jury duty.

Translation

While deaf persons have been legally able to serve on juries in several countries for many years, the concern about the ability of the deaf to comprehend the case without being able to hear has reemerged, evidenced by the use of preemptory challenges to remove deaf potential jurors from the jury pool (Boyle 2011: 35). This misconception about deaf persons’ capabilities often manifests as concern that sign language cannot accurately translate legal concepts. However, a 2005 study which investigated if sign language users could understand jury instructions well enough to fulfil jury duty, found that instructions could be translated with 87.5% accuracy. This was found to be acceptable by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (Napier and McEwen 2015: 25).

Another study in 2017 investigated the capacity of deaf people to serve as jurors assisted by Auslan interpreters. Jury instructions were translated from spoken English to Auslan and back to determine if the legal concepts could be accurately translated. The study found that deaf jurors showed no more difficulty in understanding instructions and concepts than hearing jurors. In responding to true or false questions, for instance, the difference in the number of correct questions for deaf and hearing persons was statistically insignificant (Napier and Spencer 2017: 11).

Figure 2: Auslan alphabet poster. Image source: Deaf Children Australia.

Language & Capability

And yet, very few deaf jurors have actually served. This is partially due to the misconceptions about deaf persons’ intelligence and capabilities as well as misunderstandings of how sign functions as a language. This is exhibited by the statement given by the Queensland Government, and the dismissal of deaf persons from jury pools on the grounds that even with assistance a deaf person is incapable of performing jury duty (Bertand et al 2017: 4). The implications of this is that deaf persons are not intelligent enough and lack the capacity for jury duty. As Oliver Sacks notes, those who are prelingually deaf are often at greater risk of being seen as unintelligent due to their difficulty with spoken language. That a prelingually deaf person cannot hear, however, does not mean that they cannot access language, only that the language is in a different medium. Studies have shown that children who are raised using sign language develop intellectually and socially at the same rate as their hearing counterparts (Ree 1999: 160; Sacks 1989: 45, 57). As such, the use of sign language in no way indicates that a person is unintelligent, nor that sign language cannot be used to accurately convey the happenings of the court.

Figure 3: Langue des Signes Quebecois (LSQ), the sign language alphabet used in Quebec. Image Source: Office de personnes handicapées.

Saying that sign language cannot accurately communicate legal concepts would be akin to saying that courtroom proceedings cannot be accurately translated into French or German. The error is in thinking that sign is simply a translation device, a way of converting spoken English into visible words. While Sign Exact English is used and exactly replicates spoken English words, signed languages like Auslan or ASL are fully developed with their own vocabulary and grammatical structures (Ree 1999: 202; Sacks 1989: 72). Sacks demonstrates this, recounting a story of hearing parents learning to sign with their deaf daughter:

The elaborate linear structures of spoken English [didn’t] translate into interesting sign language, so we had to reorient the way we thought to produce visual sentences…We are excited and simulated an ingenious and sensible language which has such beauty and imagination. It is a delight to realize that Charlotte’s [the daughter] signing reflects visual thought patterns… (Sacks 1989: 70)

As with Charlotte, deaf persons who serve on juries have access to the same depth of language, which has already been proven to be able to translate legal concepts (Napier and Spencer 2017: 11). Deaf people, especially those prelingually deaf might, as Charlotte did, think differently than hearing people but this does not mean that they are unintelligent but rather that they can bring a unique perspective to jury deliberation.

Conclusion

While deaf people can serve on juries in Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, many potential deaf jurors are barred from juries based on misconceptions of their intelligence, capabilities and uncertainty about the accurately of sign language. Several studies, however, indicate that deaf participants performed as well as hearing participants in comprehending jury instructions and complex legal concepts that can be critical to a jury’s verdict (Napier and Spencer 2017: 20). The continued dismissal of deaf persons from jury services is often based around the idea that deaf people are unintelligent and that, not being able to hear, they will not be able to fulfil their duties. This ignores the abundant evidence that deaf people are just as intelligent as those with hearing and can bring different perspectives to jury deliberations. Concerns that sign language cannot accurately translate legal concepts has also been shown as false and indicates a misunderstanding of the depth and versatility of sign as a form of language. In the end it is old stereotypes and misconceptions not lack of intelligence which bars deaf persons from taking part in jury duty—a civic duty which deaf persons are often willing and able to perform yet remains, for the most part, inaccessible.

All links accessed 1 June 2020

Bibliography

Bertrand, Michelle I, and Lauren Menzie. “The Jury Representativeness Guarantee in Canada: The Curious Case of Disability and Justice Making.” Journal of Ethics in Mental Health 10 (2017): 1–23. Print.

Boyle, Ciara. “A Consideration of the Eligibility of Blind or Deaf People for Jury Service in Ireland.” Hibernian Law Journal 10.1 (2011): 1–40. Print.

Napier, Jemina, and Alastair McEwin. “Do Deaf People Have the Right to Serve as Jurors in Australia?” Alternative Law Journal 40.1 (2015): 23–27. Web.

Napier, Jemina, and David Spencer. “Jury Instructions: Comparing Hearing and Deaf Jurors’ Comprehension via Direct or Mediated Communication.” International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 24.1 (2017): 1–29. Web.

Ree, Jonathan. I See Voice. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999. Print.

Sacks, Oliver. Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Print.

Further Reading

Bleyer, Kristi et al. “Feature Access to Jury Service for Persons with Disabilities.” Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 19.2 (1995): 249–254. Print.

Brisbane Supreme and District Courts by Silvia Micheli and Antony Moulis, n.d.

Lepofsky, David. “Equal Access to Canada’s Judicial System for Persons with Disabilities – A Time for Reform.” National Journal of Constitutional Law 2.3 (1995): 183–204. Print.

Mulcahy, Linda. “Architects of Justice: The Politics of Courtroom Design.” Social and Legal Studies 16.3 (2007): 383–403. Web.

Spaulding, Norman W. “The Enclosure of Justice.” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 24.1 (2012): 311–343. Print.

Tait, David. “Glass Cages in the Dock?: Presenting the Defendant to the Jury.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 86.2 (2011): 467–496. Web.

The Changing Face of Justice by Graham Brown

is unintelligent, nor that sign language cannot be used to accurately convey the happenings of the court.

Figure 3: Langue des Signes Quebecois (LSQ), the sign language alphabet used in Quebec. Image Source: Office de personnes handicapées.

Saying that sign language cannot accurately communicate legal concepts would be akin to saying that courtroom proceedings cannot be accurately translated into French or German. The error is in thinking that sign is simply a translation device, a way of converting spoken English into visible words. While Sign Exact English is used and exactly replicates spoken English words, signed languages like Auslan or ASL are fully developed with their own vocabulary and grammatical structures (Ree 1999: 202; Sacks 1989: 72). Sacks demonstrates this, recounting a story of hearing parents learning to sign with their deaf daughter:

The elaborate linear structures of spoken English [didn’t] translate into interesting sign language, so we had to reorient the way we thought to produce visual sentences…We are excited and simulated an ingenious and sensible language which has such beauty and imagination. It is a delight to realize that Charlotte’s [the daughter] signing reflects visual thought patterns… (Sacks 1989: 70)

As with Charlotte, deaf persons who serve on juries have access to the same depth of language, which has already been proven to be able to translate legal concepts (Napier and Spencer 2017: 11). Deaf people, especially those prelingually deaf might, as Charlotte did, think differently than hearing people but this does not mean that they are unintelligent but rather that they can bring a unique perspective to jury deliberation.

Conclusion

While deaf people can serve on juries in Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, many potential deaf jurors are barred from juries based on misconceptions of their intelligence, capabilities and uncertainty about the accurately of sign language. Several studies, however, indicate that deaf participants performed as well as hearing participants in comprehending jury instructions and complex legal concepts that can be critical to a jury’s verdict (Napier and Spencer 2017: 20). The continued dismissal of deaf persons from jury services is often based around the idea that deaf people are unintelligent and that, not being able to hear, they will not be able to fulfil their duties. This ignores the abundant evidence that deaf people are just as intelligent as those with hearing and can bring different perspectives to jury deliberations. Concerns that sign language cannot accurately translate legal concepts has also been shown as false and indicates a misunderstanding of the depth and versatility of sign as a form of language. In the end it is old stereotypes and misconceptions not lack of intelligence which bars deaf persons from taking part in jury duty—a civic duty which deaf persons are often willing and able to perform yet remains, for the most part, inaccessible.

All links accessed 1 June 2020

Bibliography

Bertrand, Michelle I, and Lauren Menzie. “The Jury Representativeness Guarantee in Canada: The Curious Case of Disability and Justice Making.” Journal of Ethics in Mental Health 10 (2017): 1–23. Print.

Boyle, Ciara. “A Consideration of the Eligibility of Blind or Deaf People for Jury Service in Ireland.” Hibernian Law Journal 10.1 (2011): 1–40. Print.

Napier, Jemina, and Alastair McEwin. “Do Deaf People Have the Right to Serve as Jurors in Australia?” Alternative Law Journal 40.1 (2015): 23–27. Web.

Napier, Jemina, and David Spencer. “Jury Instructions: Comparing Hearing and Deaf Jurors’ Comprehension via Direct or Mediated Communication.” International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 24.1 (2017): 1–29. Web.

Ree, Jonathan. I See Voice. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999. Print.

Sacks, Oliver. Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Print.

Further Reading

Bleyer, Kristi et al. “Feature Access to Jury Service for Persons with Disabilities.” Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 19.2 (1995): 249–254. Print.

Brisbane Supreme and District Courts by Silvia Micheli and Antony Moulis, n.d.

Lepofsky, David. “Equal Access to Canada’s Judicial System for Persons with Disabilities – A Time for Reform.” National Journal of Constitutional Law 2.3 (1995): 183–204. Print.

Mulcahy, Linda. “Architects of Justice: The Politics of Courtroom Design.” Social and Legal Studies 16.3 (2007): 383–403. Web.

Spaulding, Norman W. “The Enclosure of Justice.” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 24.1 (2012): 311–343. Print.

Tait, David. “Glass Cages in the Dock?: Presenting the Defendant to the Jury.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 86.2 (2011): 467–496. Web.

The Changing Face of Justice by Graham Brown