Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!prlhp1!gupta
From: gupta@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk (Ashok Gupta)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Fate of the FOIA
Message-ID: <1352@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk>
Date: 6 Jun 91 14:14:28 GMT
References: <1991May31.203017.19854@Think.COM> <8aFV35w164w@cellar.UUCP> <1991Jun1.210400.24855@Think.COM>
Reply-To: gupta@prlhp1.UUCP (Ashok Gupta)
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Redhill, UK
Lines: 40

In article <1991Jun1.210400.24855@Think.COM> barmar@think.com writes:
>
>How can the attorney make a case if he doesn't know precisely what the jury
>is hearing?  Yes, there will be a translator present, but the lawyer will
>be hearing a different translation than that which the bilingual juror is
>forming internally.
>
>Consider the old adage about eskimos having ten words for "snow".  An
>eskimo witness might use one of them, and the official translation might be
>"snow".  However, an eskimo juror would hear the original word, and
>understand a more specific connotation than that which the attorneys hear.
>-- 

Seems to me we're forgetting two important points (at least) :

Firstly, there is a difference between "hearing" and "listening".
We all interpret (and colour by our experiences and prejudices) 
what we hear.  All the jurors and lawyers will be doing this.  So the 
question is whether the bilingual juror is subject to *two* 
opportunities to mis-interpret and if so, whether one should aim to 
reduce this to one.  Being bi-lingual, the juror will hear 
and interpret for himself/herself *both* the original testimony, from 
the plaintiff or defendant and the translation, and so be subject to
two opportunities to mis-interpret/colour the testimony.  That is clear.
The question is whether, the elimination is desirable.  

This brings me to the second point :
The bi-lingual juror's ability *informs* his/her decision-making process
positively.  Understanding language requires one to pick out nuances,
accents, inflexions etc. in addition to knowing the many meanings
of a single word.  Just because most of the jury are disadvantaged
in that they can't understand the original testimony, does not mean that 
those who can should be removed.  Two wrongs don't make a right.
If the eskimo can grasp a specific connotation, good for him/her and
good for the better outcome of the case. The attorney's are the loosers.
Women and the black community, have for long pleaded for a balanced jury
- representing different sexes and different ethnic groups.  The point is,
one wants a representative jury and a varied one.  

 - Ashok