If you see this text then you need to update your flash player.

Print this pagePrint this page.

Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
Not With a Bang But a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline
by Theodore Dalrymple
In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas
by Theodore Dalrymple
Defending The West:
by Ibn Warraq
Nations, Language and Citizenship:
by Norman Berdichevsky
Romancing Opiates
by Theodore Dalrymple
Which Koran?
by Ibn Warraq
Our Culture, What's Left of It
by Theodore Dalrymple
What The Koran Really Says
by Ibn Warraq
Life at the Bottom
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Origins of the Koran
by Ibn Warraq
Why I Am Not Muslim
by Ibn Warraq
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky
Leaving Islam
Edited by Ibn Warraq
Friday, 11 July 2008
The Poor Dears

Julia Preston writes in the New Duranty:

WATERLOO, Iowa — In 23 years as a certified Spanish interpreter for federal courts, Erik Camayd-Freixas has spoken up in criminal trials many times, but the words he uttered were rarely his own.

Then he was summoned here by court officials to translate in the hearings for nearly 400 illegal immigrant workers arrested in a raid on May 12 at a meatpacking plant. Since then, Mr. Camayd-Freixas, a professor of Spanish at Florida International University, has taken the unusual step of breaking the code of confidentiality among legal interpreters about their work.

In a 14-page essay he circulated among two dozen other interpreters who worked here, Professor Camayd-Freixas wrote that the immigrant defendants whose words he translated, most of them villagers from Guatemala, did not fully understand the criminal charges they were facing or the rights most of them had waived.

In the essay and an interview, Professor Camayd-Freixas said he was taken aback by the rapid pace of the proceedings and the pressure prosecutors brought to bear on the defendants and their lawyers by pressing criminal charges instead of deporting the workers immediately for immigration violations.

He said defense lawyers had little time or privacy to meet with their court-assigned clients in the first hectic days after the raid. Most of the Guatemalans could not read or write, he said. Most did not understand that they were in criminal court.

“The questions they asked showed they did not understand what was going on,” Professor Camayd-Freixas said in the interview. “The great majority were under the impression they were there because of being illegal in the country, not because of Social Security fraud.”...

In plea agreements offered by Mr. Dummermuth, the immigrants could plead guilty to a document fraud charge and serve five months in prison. Otherwise, prosecutors would try them on more serious identity theft charges carrying a mandatory sentence of two years. In any scenario, even if they were acquitted, the immigrants would eventually be deported....

I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out why this is a story. Does anyone think if they smuggled themselves into Guatamala illegally and then were caught with forged identity papers that the Guatamalan government would give you a lawyer and a translator, a speedy trial, a mere five months in a decent prison where you were well-fed, and then pay to send you all the way back to America?  And what about American citizens committing identity fraud? More than five months? And what if you do something less serious, like fudge on your income to the IRS?  The U.S. government will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

What exactly is so terrible about the working of American justice in this case?

Posted on 7:44 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Comments
11 Jul 2008
Artemis Gordon Glidden

I had the occasion to go before the court for a mere speeding ticket recently.  When it was finally my turn, it was a blurred whirlwind of "If you change your plea from 'Guilty' to 'No Contest' I'll bump the misdemeanor 428.6 down to a infraction and drop the 629.2a".  Me: "Ummm, ooookaaaay."

To any people in the legal profession reading NER, it may seem trivial.  I had no idea of the ramifications of what was proposed and agreed to.  The courts are hard to understand, and not just by Guatamalan illegal immigrants.  They are not set up for the edification of the defendant, they're set up to run efficiently and smoothly, so they've developed their own shorthand lexicon.

We're supposed to feel sympathy because they thought they were being prosecuted for illegally entering the country, when in fact they were being prosecuted for Social Security fraud?  But they did both.*  No wonder they got confused.

*Allegedly, since we have a presumption of innocence.



11 Jul 2008
Send an emailRebecca Bynum
That's my experience too. Nobody gets time to go home and research the whole situation - they give the defendant the offer 2 minutes before he goes before the judge. Take it or leave it.

Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
 
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

RSS Site Feed
RSS Feed