This is a very controversial issue in the US right now. Should a woman be accorded a different set of standards from everyone else simply because she's deaf? Yes it involves capital punishment-- a highly charged and emotional issue, but right or wrong, I'm interested in knowing your thoughts on the defense team's arguments.
Quote:
Should the Deaf Get Death?
A Controversial South Dakota Death Penalty Murder Case Raises an Unusual Issue: Should There Be a Different Standard for the Disabled?
By LARA SETRAKIAN and NATASHA SINGH
ABC News Law & Justice Unit
March 9, 2007 — - It was a grisly crime, with details shocking enough to grab headlines of their own.
But the case of Daphne Wright, a deaf woman charged with murder in a lesbian love triangle, is raising a controversial question that goes beyond the case itself: Should deaf defendants ever face the death penalty?
A motion filed by Wright's attorneys argues that imposing the death penalty on Wright violates the Eighth Amendment, which forbids the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments." Wright's attorneys say that because she has been deaf since early childhood she is at an unfair disadvantage in trying to persuade a jury to spare her life.
Presiding Judge Bradley Zeff denied that motion in February, rejecting the defense argument that Wright's lifelong deafness makes it unconstitutional for prosecutors to seek the death penalty. As of now, with jury selection under way and a trial imminent, Daphne Wright faces execution if convicted for her alleged crimes.
The facts of the case are startlingly gruesome. Darlene VanderGeisen, a deaf woman from Sioux Falls, S.D., disappeared on Feb. 1, 2006. She was later found dead and dismembered, her body parts found scattered between a landfill in Sioux Falls and a ditch near Beaver Creek, Minn.
Ten days after the killing Wright was arrested on murder charges. According to court documents, a search of Wright's basement yielded bone fragments and tissue that matched VanderGeisen's DNA. Autopsy reports determined the cause of death was either suffocation or a blow to the head. It is believed a chainsaw was used to dismember VanderGeisen after she had been killed.
Prosecutors say Wright got caught up in a whirlwind of lesbian drama which drove her to commit murder. The motive was jealousy. Wright says VanderGeisen, who was heterosexual, was trying to break up her lesbian relationship with a woman identified as Sallie Collins, a close friend of the victim. The two reportedly had a heated argument over the relationship shortly before the murder took place.
Wright maintains her innocence and has pleaded not guilty. If convicted on the charges of abduction, murder and dismembering, she faces death by lethal injection and could become the first woman to be executed in South Dakota.
In court this week, prosecuting attorney Dave Nelson told prospective jurors a simplified version of why he's seeking the death penalty for Wright.
Nelson told the court, "We don't have different rules for different people. We don't have different rules for different groups," according to The Associated Press.
A number of disability rights activists agree, stating that equal rights for the deaf means equal treatment everywhere -- including in the courtroom. If Wright is charged with crimes that warrant the death penalty, then that's what prosecutors should pursue.
"I think it's very dangerous to argue that deaf people as a general matter shouldn't be eligible for the death penalty," Andrew Imparato told ABC News. Imparato is the president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities.
"Making that argument [involves] saying that they are not aware of the consequences of their actions. It can reinforce stereotypes … lead to discrimination against deaf people."
Her Defense
Most scholars and clinical professionals agree that the deaf are at a disadvantage in the courtroom. But they disagree on whether that disadvantage can be overcome.
The defense motion to bar the death penalty in Wright's case cited a study by Barbara Brauer, executive director of Gallaudet University, the first school for the advanced education of the deaf. Brauer measured how long it takes to interpret into sign language what a person is saying in English; she found that a series of questions that could be administered in 42 minutes in spoken English would take two hours to administer in American sign language.
In their motion to strike the death penalty defense attorneys for Wright cited the lack of consecutive interpretation. In other words, the sign language interpreter assigned to her case would be translating simultaneously during the court proceedings, rather than listening to a portion of testimony and translating during a pause in the process.
This, attorneys argue, leaves little time to compensate for the fact that it takes longer to say something in sign language than in spoken English -- particularly when the complex legal concepts are part of the conversation.
Her attorneys also state in their motion that American Sign Language "lacks technical and legal terms" that would be crucial to Daphne Wright as tries to understand the court proceedings around her.
Judge Bradley Zell has allowed court proceedings to be videotaped so that Daphne Wright and her lawyers can have a record of the sign language communications used in the courtroom. Her lawyers maintain that they are not allowed to use a Certified Deaf Interpreter for the trial.
Professor Jeff Braden, an expert in deafness and development, says that Wright should not face the death penalty, even if an ideal interpreter were available. "She is at more of a disadvantage than, say, if you or I were arrested and taken to court in Pakistan, where we'd be at the mercy of a court interpreter. Having an interpreter still doesn't change the fact that deaf people don't have a native language."
The problem, Braden says, is that it is not uncommon for a woman like Wright -- deaf since early childhood and born to hearing parents -- to get a late start in her exposure to language. In those critical early years, Braden says, critical communication skills are lost.
"There are a number of barriers that deaf people face that would put them at a severe disadvantage in a legal proceeding. … She'd be at a significant disadvantage, even with an interpreter." Braden told ABC News.
"Battery or manslaughter may be signed the same way. An individual is not getting info they need because American Sign Language doesn't [those symbols]," Braden added. He also notes that tone of voice and other nuances that convey meaning in the courtroom would get lost in interpretation.
Rick Norris of Communication Service for the Deaf told ABC News he believes otherwise. He says the only time interpretation could present a problem is at times of long duration, when it might become taxing on the interpreter.
Other researchers agree, stating that as long as qualified interpreters are provided, deaf defendants should have no inherent problem understanding the complexity of the legal process or the moral weight of their alleged crimes.
The problem seen by activists like Imparato is lack of access to qualified interpreters. In some cases, courts are not willing or able to find and pay for qualified interpreters. According to the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, an agency that logs all nationally legally certified translators, says there are currently only 167 legally certified translators across the United States.
"There is a serious problem around the country with deaf people not having access to qualified sign language interpreters," Imparato told ABC News. "Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal and state laws, deaf people are entitled to effective communication."
What's Next for Wright?
Jury selection began on March 5 and could last up to six weeks. Because the death penalty is a possible outcome, the pool of possible jurors is larger than in most cases.
The case is being closely watched by activists from the deaf community, the disabled community and the gay rights community -- all of them waiting to see how Wright is treated in court, whether she'll be convicted and whether execution is the sentence she'll ultimately face.
KSa
All people should be treated in the same way unless they are mentally disabled. That defenders are talking rubbish is not surprising because they are (well) paid to do so.
greg in noord-frankrijk
If that deaf woman escapes death penalty for whatever reason, it might serve as a precedent for any other human being in the same situation.
Daniel
Wow.
I'm profoundly Deaf myself and I'd expect to get the same punishment as anyone else regardless so I'm surprised to hear this.
If that deaf woman is proven guilty then she should be punished. She shouldn't be made exceptional from the law just because she can't hear.
Uriel
If her translator can't keep up and lacks the vocabulary to convey all of the information adequately, perhaps they should seat the defendant next to the court stenographer, and she can peer over their shoulder.
I'm not sure what kind of complex legal concepts are really involved in trying a person for whacking someone over the head and hacking them up with a chainsaw, either.
greg in noord-frankrijk
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
If that deaf woman escapes death penalty for whatever reason, it might serve as a precedent for any other human being in the same situation.
Sorry to quote myself but I meant that death penalty should not be applied to anyone.
KSa
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
If that deaf woman escapes death penalty for whatever reason, it might serve as a precedent for any other human being in the same situation.
Sorry to quote myself but I meant that death penalty should not be applied to anyone.
I think death penalty should be applied in some rare situations and here is an example: exceptionally cruel murder preceded by torture and/or rape, evidence of the deed beyond the shadow of doubt + the (mentally sound) villain admits what he/she did and doesn't regret it.
Uriel
That's pretty much how it's applied in the US -- Murder One with exceptionally aggravating circumstances. Or treason. I don't think there are any other capital crimes.
Pauline
I'm against the death penalty for all people.
Except for the death penalty there are many possibilities for "punishment" or "treatment" for the guilty person and this things can be chosed depending of the crime, the criminal and the entire situation. I think that for some of them it would be the best thing to be in a strict prsion, a prison hospital or for other ones to must do certain work during some years (not paid and they must live in the prison when they're not working). Education would be important as well for some etc....
It occur too often that the verdict is incorrect because of misinterpretations of evidence, a very good /bad lawyer, the person can /can't represent themself well or to convince of innocence etc........ if there were the death penalty of course this would never be able to renverse the situation, but if the person were in prison then it would be a possibility to release them and compensate.
KSa
Pauline wrote:
It occur too often that the verdict is incorrect because of misinterpretations of evidence, a very good /bad lawyer, the person can /can't represent themself well or to convince of innocence etc........ if there were the death penalty of course this would never be able to renverse the situation, but if the person were in prison then it would be a possibility to release them and compensate.
So why I wrote that death penalty should only be apllied in clear and exceptional cases.
For example Hitler: if he'd survived the war he'd have deserved death penalty not only because he was responsible for death of millions of people. Imagine a situation he'd got life inmprisonment and after 10 or 20 years Nazis reagained power and let him out... Then he could've repeated his cruelties. So death penalty is also to guarantee that the person will never commit crime again.
Loic
I think the death penalty can never be completely eradicated as long as human beings retain a sadistic liking for snuffing the lives out of others.
In exceptional situations, the overall benefit of applying the death penalty might -and it is only a hypothesis here- outweigh its costs. Let's take desertion or high treason committed by soldiers in times of war: nothing short of death would remotely induce combat traumatised solders from sticking to the straight and narrow.
Actually, I can confidently say that death penalties in countries with a mature and well-developed judicial system are often correct. There must usually be overwhelming evidence of guilt before the defendant has to face the noose or the firing squad.
But the premise of guilt is never seriously in dispute here. What opponents of the death penalty contest are the reasons for the death penalty. By putting the murderer to death, the state has simply filled in the shoes left behind by the convicted man and assumed his culpability in equal measure. I do not want to belabour the point, but it is precisely for this reason that the death penalty must be abolished unless the convicted defendant has fallen afoul of certain actions which are truly reprehensible i.e. desertion in times of war or high treason.
Should the deaf get preferential treatment in the courts of law? I think any case tried by a jury would automatically result in sympathy for the defendant irrespective of his crime.
Should it be a mitigating factor?
Well, it depends. We should examine the issue on a case-by-case basis and decide if being aurally impaired has reasonably affected his judgement at the time the crime is committed. I am sure rules have been built up in case laws that advocates can fall back on.
PS: Rules built up in case law would only apply to jurisdictions which adhere to the English common law system.
Loic
I think the death penalty can never be completely eradicated as long as human beings retain a sadistic liking for snuffing the lives out of others.
In exceptional situations, the overall benefit of applying the death penalty might -and it is only a hypothesis here- outweigh its costs. Let's take desertion or high treason committed by soldiers in times of war: nothing short of death would remotely induce combat traumatised solders from sticking to the straight and narrow.
Actually, I can confidently say that death penalties in countries with a mature and well-developed judicial system are often correct. There must usually be overwhelming evidence of guilt before the defendant has to face the noose or the firing squad.
But the premise of guilt is never seriously in dispute here. What opponents of the death penalty contest are the reasons for the death penalty. By putting the murderer to death, the state has simply filled in the shoes left behind by the convicted man and assumed his culpability in equal measure. I do not want to belabour the point, but it is precisely for this reason that the death penalty must be abolished unless the convicted defendant has fallen afoul of certain actions which are truly reprehensible i.e. desertion in times of war or high treason.
Should the deaf get preferential treatment in the courts of law? I think any case tried by a jury would automatically result in sympathy for the defendant irrespective of his crime.
Should it be a mitigating factor?
Well, it depends. We should examine the issue on a case-by-case basis and decide if being aurally impaired has reasonably affected his judgement at the time the crime is committed. I am sure rules have been built up in case laws that advocates can fall back on.
PS: Rules built up in case law would only apply to jurisdictions which adhere to the English common law system.
