SkyChimp 0 #1 July 22, 2007 Here is the article.......... I'm bloody sick to my stomach. ENGLISH PEOPLE....... ENGLISH!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290300,00.html ROCKVILLE, Md. — Charges against a man accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl were dismissed last week because the court could not find an interpreter fluent in the suspect's native West African language. Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian native who received asylum in this country and attended high school and community college here, according to The Washington Post, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai. Click here to read The Washington Post article. A court-ordered psychiatrist determined that Kanneh, despite his functional facility with English — he originally spoke with detectives in English, The Post reports, needed to have Vai spoken in order to understand the proceedings against him. Loretta Knight, a clerk with the court system in Montgomery County, Md., said she had been unable to find an interpreter to stay on the case, even after an exhaustive search that included the Liberian Embassy and courts in 47 states. Judge Katherine Savage called her decision to dismiss the charges one of the most difficult she's had to make in a long time, especially since she was aware of "the gravity of this case and the community's concern about offenses of this type." Prosecutors can't refile the charges but are considering whether to appeal the judge's ruling for the dismissal. FOX News spoke with a man who claimed to be Kanneh in a five-minute phone conversation on Sunday in English. He said the allegations against him were false and the dismissal of the charges was "a good thing." Asked if the accusations were true, he responded, "I said what I had to say" and hung up. The Washington Post wrote in its article that in just one night reporters were independently able to identify three Vai translators available to assist in the case. It noted that the need for interpreters has risen starkly in Montgomery County, Md., with the court system spending $1 million in interpreters in 2006, or 10 times the amount it spent in 2000. According to witnesses who originally reported the case to authorities, Kanneh allegedly repeatedly raped and sexually molested the girl, a relative. In a statement made by the girl to police, she said she had been told she'd be forced to stay in the apartment unless she had sex with Kanneh. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #2 July 23, 2007 Quote A court-ordered psychiatrist determined that Kanneh, despite his functional facility with English — he originally spoke with detectives in English, The Post reports, needed to have Vai spoken in order to understand the proceedings against him. PART OF THE PROBLEM! Hmmmm, maybe those whack-job scientologists are right about shrinks....Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #3 July 23, 2007 Three years waiting for an interpreter? Unacceptable. He may be guilty of horrible crimes, but 3 years of waiting while presumed innocent is f-ed up. Whomever's job it was to secure a translator should be fired, yesterday. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #4 July 24, 2007 Quote Three years waiting for an interpreter? Unacceptable. He may be guilty of horrible crimes, but 3 years of waiting while presumed innocent is f-ed up. Whomever's job it was to secure a translator should be fired, yesterday. Did you even read the full article before going off half-cocked? It's not as though the government just sat there on their asses and pretended to be looking for an interpreter for this jackal. To me, it seems that the government made good-faith efforts to get an interpreter (for a guy who evidently doesn't even NEED one) and each time, it was the interpreter or the interpreter's circumstances that fell through. The government even had one IN the courtroom, and she couldn't handle the facts of the case and ran out. Hmm. This guy seems to have just been playing the system. He attended school in the U.S. in English. He spoke with detectives in English. NOW he needs to have English translated into ...Vai? Only now that it's crucial to his bullshit claim of denial of a speedy trial. And how is the government to be faulted for having a hard time locating a QUALIFIED translater for a language spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population? (100,000/5,000,000) I can't figure out where in the Constitution a foreigner is entitled to having court proceedings translated into a non-English language. I think they should have gone on with the trial in English, and FUCK this pig-dog child molester! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #5 July 24, 2007 If I'm the prosecutor I make DAMN SURE that a translator is available for the trial. If his English was that good the judge could have gone ahead with things with no translator. I agree that this is terrible, but shame on the system for screwing the pooch again. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #6 July 24, 2007 Quote Did you even read the full article before going off half-cocked? Well, I have read the article. And I've got the same opinion. Quote To me, it seems that the government made good-faith efforts to get an interpreter (for a guy who evidently doesn't even NEED one) Do you have any evidence to support this claim (that the guy doesn't even need one), or you're just speculating? I'm asking this because after living in US for last two years, I still wouldn't feel confident to get through the trial conducted in English - even though a lot of people said my English is pretty good. First, I don't really know the terminology (i.e. words) used in the court - this is definitely not something learned in the high school or ESL. Second, it is very easy to manipulate a non-native speaker using slang or jargon, and in the court it could have grave cosequences. Quote This guy seems to have just been playing the system. He attended school in the U.S. in English. He spoke with detectives in English. NOW he needs to have English translated into ...Vai? I agree it could be hard to understand for a person who has never tried to learn foreign language. There is a HUGE difference between following the basic conversation (even with police detectives) in "what-is-your-name-my-name-is-Jim" pattern, and defending yourself in the court where you are expected to understand everything, and the cosequences for misunderstanding might be harsh. Quote Only now that it's crucial to his bullshit claim of denial of a speedy trial. And how is the government to be faulted for having a hard time locating a QUALIFIED translater for a language spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population? (100,000/5,000,000) Because the Constitution guarantees fair trial to ANYONE. Even to the person whose language is spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population. Regarding qualification, I'm sure you understand youself why the court translator has to be qualified for the job, and why the court cannot accept a person from the street claiming he or she speaks both languages. Quote I can't figure out where in the Constitution a foreigner is entitled to having court proceedings translated into a non-English language. Because the trial has to be fair. This includes a lot of things, like the person's ability to understand the charges against him, challenge the evidence, cross-examine witnesses and so on. Obviously it requires good knowledge of the language. Quote I think they should have gone on with the trial in English, and FUCK this pig-dog child molester! Have you ever been aboard in the country where English is not a native language (which is case with most countries around the world)? How would you feel being in Thai court with no English translator, while the whole trial is conducted in Thai?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 July 24, 2007 QuoteTo me, it seems that the government made good-faith efforts to get an interpreter (for a guy who evidently doesn't even NEED one) and each time, it was the interpreter or the interpreter's circumstances that fell through. The government even had one IN the courtroom, and she couldn't handle the facts of the case and ran out. Hmm. A 3 year delay pretty much blows your 'good faith effort' line out of the water. It doesn't matter why they failed, or if the defendent is accused of something really bad. The right to a speedy trial is one of the original protected rights of our country. The article didn't say if he was jailed during this time. That's an interesting detail to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #8 July 25, 2007 WELL.... He's a free man now..... Read this shit!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290603,00.html Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #9 July 25, 2007 QuoteWELL.... He's a free man now..... Read this shit!!!! So the state tried to stomp over the constitution and the judge stopped them. The man has not been convicted of anything why shouldn't he be free, or do you think the constitution should be not apply for black Africans who are accused of child rape? If we don't hold the government AT ALL LEVELS responsible for abiding by the constitution then we will find they will piss over all of us. (current administration is a good example of how the government will try). I'm angry that the victims will never had their chance to see the accused in court, but I'm also angry that the state failed and broke the constitution. The state fuck up is the reason that this man did not face a jury, period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #10 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuote To me, it seems that the government made good-faith efforts to get an interpreter (for a guy who evidently doesn't even NEED one) Do you have any evidence to support this claim (that the guy doesn't even need one), or you're just speculating? Well, the claim was made that the guy attended school in the U.S., and spoke with detectives in English. I would've hoped they'd have recorded or videotaped those conversations (which is growing more common, and is actually required in some jurisdictions) to back that claim up. For whatever reason, apparently this guy was believed to need an interpreter. QuoteI'm asking this because after living in US for last two years, I still wouldn't feel confident to get through the trial conducted in English - even though a lot of people said my English is pretty good. First, I don't really know the terminology (i.e. words) used in the court - this is definitely not something learned in the high school or ESL. I guess our society is shit outta luck if we ever have to try even an American for murder if he's just some dumb yokel. I mean, according to your standard, here, we can't try anyone unless they've received education in the law! Here's a hint: this is what LAWYERS are for. And if you can't afford one, the government will actually GIVE you one, in this country. (I dunno, does that even happen in other countries?) QuoteSecond, it is very easy to manipulate a non-native speaker using slang or jargon, and in the court it could have grave cosequences. Once again, he'd have a lawyer to make sure he didn't get railroaded. QuoteI agree it could be hard to understand for a person who has never tried to learn foreign language. There is a HUGE difference between following the basic conversation (even with police detectives) in "what-is-your-name-my-name-is-Jim" pattern, and defending yourself in the court where you are expected to understand everything, and the cosequences for misunderstanding might be harsh. My understanding is that unless a defendant is called to testify, the court proceedings have really very little to do with him. And in many cases, defense attorneys advise their clients NOT to testify. I think you are putting too much weight on the idea that this guy would be able to follow every last word of legalese in the courtroom. I'd wager that MOST criminal defendants are not smart or educated enough to do that, yet we don't let them go free just on the idea that we can't dare try them because they don't understand the legal proceedings. That's absurdist. QuoteQuote Only now that it's crucial to his bullshit claim of denial of a speedy trial. And how is the government to be faulted for having a hard time locating a QUALIFIED translater for a language spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population? (100,000/5,000,000) Because the Constitution guarantees fair trial to ANYONE. Even to the person whose language is spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population. Please show me that specific language in the Constitution. You're making the claim; now back your claim up. QuoteRegarding qualification, I'm sure you understand youself why the court translator has to be qualified for the job, and why the court cannot accept a person from the street claiming he or she speaks both languages. ALL THE MORE REASON TO JUSTIFY THAT IT HAS TAKEN THREE YEARS TO FIND A QUALIFIED INTERPRETER FOR THIS SHITBAG'S SHITHOLE LANGUAGE THAT ONLY TWO THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S POPULATION SPEAKS! That's been my whole fucking point! The story details how the government had a line on at least three such interpreters, and they fell through for various reasons. QuoteHave you ever been aboard in the country where English is not a native language (which is case with most countries around the world)? How would you feel being in Thai court with no English translator, while the whole trial is conducted in Thai? Well, for one thing, I'll bet they'd fucking laugh at me if I said they had to drop the charges and let me go just because they didn't have someone who could translate Thai into my language. I wonder, can you confirm that Thailand would provide a no-cost interpreter to an English speaking criminal defendant in a Thai court? To answer your question, I wouldn't like it, no. But if my language, instead of being English, was vanishingly rare, I think it should be expected and accepted that it might take a good long time to arrange an interpreter for me. I'd like confirmation from anyone who knows, about whether other countries go to these lengths like the U.S. is in this case expected to. I can't even answer the question "Does England provide a defense lawyer to those who cannot afford one, as the U.S. Constitution guarantees here?" Let alone, "Do they pay for and arrange interpreters for speakers of foreign languages no matter how obscure?"Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #11 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteTo me, it seems that the government made good-faith efforts to get an interpreter (for a guy who evidently doesn't even NEED one) and each time, it was the interpreter or the interpreter's circumstances that fell through. The government even had one IN the courtroom, and she couldn't handle the facts of the case and ran out. Hmm. A 3 year delay pretty much blows your 'good faith effort' line out of the water. It doesn't matter why they failed, or if the defendent is accused of something really bad. The right to a speedy trial is one of the original protected rights of our country. The article didn't say if he was jailed during this time. That's an interesting detail to me. The length of time it took them has everything to do with how long it is fair to expect it would take to find a qualified, bona fide interpreter of a language spoken by less than twelve thousandths of one percent of the earth's population. Read in the story that they had arranged several interpreters, but they fell through for various reasons. That means they didn't just let the guy sit there for three years straight. At several points along in the three years, I'll bet it seemed to everyone that they were about to get underway, until things went screwy with these whacko african interpreters! (Like the one who bolted from the courtroom because of the subject matter being abhorrent.) In this case, it seems to be hardly the fault of the government/prosecution that they couldn't get started because they were working to get this guy the fair treatment he's entitled to. HE'S the one with the special needs. They tried over and over to fill them. I also don't know if he was in jail awaiting trial the whole time or not. If so, maybe they could've let him out on bail with an ankle monitor. But gee, it must be nice to be untouchable because the government holds itself to fairness standards and won't/can't try you because the language you speak is so obscure. I'd like to know more about the claims that he was just fine with English...Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #12 July 25, 2007 How many of you people sounding off actually read the damned story?! Here are some excerpts: QuoteSavage ruled on July 17 that Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian who received asylum in the U.S. and attended high school and community college here, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai. Linguists estimate that only 100,000 people speak Vai. A guy can attend community college but not have enough English to stand trial for a brutal crime against a 7-year-old girl? Quote"The fact is on four separate occasions this court provided Vai interpreters," McCarthy said, adding that one of the interpreters had agreed to participate in further proceedings. Court records, meanwhile, show that an interpreter was "sworn" by a Maryland court on the same day Savage dismissed the case, FOXNews.com has learned. Loretta Knight, a clerk with the court system in Montgomery County, Md., claimed she had been unable to find an interpreter to stay on the case, even after an exhaustive search that included the Liberian Embassy and courts in 47 states. But a look at the court docket for July 17, the day the case was dismissed, shows the entry "Interpreter sworn.” Several items below in the docket, Judge Savage “grants defendant’s oral motion to dismiss case based on a speedy trial violation.” A review by FOX News of the audio from that hearing shows, however, that an interpreter was present throughout the entire court proceeding, during which time Kanneh's lawyer, Theresa Chernosky, argued that her client had not been able to get a good job because of unresolved rape charges. QuoteThe translator can be heard throughout the entire hearing. "What we come back to, then ... too much time has passed, is that it's the defendant who hold speedy trial rights." The Washington Post reported, however, that Kanneh had waived his rights to a speedy trial. Why Savage dismissed the case when records indicate an interpreter had been sworn is just one of several questions raised by an examination of records by FOXNews.com. I have to ask, what have you all been reading, to claim that the court/government failed this guy? Sounds to me like they were trying their asses off.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #13 July 25, 2007 Quote If I'm the prosecutor I make DAMN SURE that a translator is available for the trial. If his English was that good the judge could have gone ahead with things with no translator. I agree that this is terrible, but shame on the system for screwing the pooch again. Read my post. In fact, why don't you read the fucking ARTICLE. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you haven't. I mean, over and over in the article, it says that court recordings show there WAS a translator. And yet, here you are saying that the court screwed up by not having a translator... Howzat?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites virgin-burner 1 #14 July 25, 2007 why dont we get back to the good old law of the jungle? i'm sure you all would understand if a crowd with bats and hayforks bashes your head into a mass of blood and brain, eventually hanging your sorry ass on the next available tree, wouldnt you? no translation needed for that you know..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #15 July 25, 2007 Quote I have to ask, what have you all been reading, to claim that the court/government failed this guy? Sounds to me like they were trying their asses off. In the words of Yoda - "Try? There is no try. Do, or do not." I always want to see the guilty convicted, but 3 years is excessive. If it was me on trial, and I was innocent, I would probably kill myself after 3 years behind bars. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #16 July 25, 2007 Quote Quote If I'm the prosecutor I make DAMN SURE that a translator is available for the trial. If his English was that good the judge could have gone ahead with things with no translator. I agree that this is terrible, but shame on the system for screwing the pooch again. Read my post. In fact, why don't you read the fucking ARTICLE. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you haven't. I mean, over and over in the article, it says that court recordings show there WAS a translator. And yet, here you are saying that the court screwed up by not having a translator... Howzat? I read the FUCKING article. It's OBVIOUSLY right in the very first POST.****ROCKVILLE, Md. — Charges against a man accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl were dismissed last week because the court could not find an interpreter fluent in the suspect's native West African language. Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian native who received asylum in this country and attended high school and community college here, according to The Washington Post, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #17 July 25, 2007 If this guy turns up dead, does there need to be any investigation? The list of possible suspects would be in the millions. It does not have to be the deed of the family members, it could be any outraged person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #18 July 25, 2007 That is an insult to pigs and dogs everywhere. You owe those fine animals an appolgy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #19 July 25, 2007 Quote Well, the claim was made that the guy attended school in the U.S., and spoke with detectives in English. This is hardly enough to support this claim, as I have said before. Quote I guess our society is shit outta luck if we ever have to try even an American for murder if he's just some dumb yokel. I mean, according to your standard, here, we can't try anyone unless they've received education in the law! This is not what I said. Even though the person doesn't have degree in law, the trial against the person is still fair if he/she has the ability to understand what the charges are, could challenge the evidence, explain their option, and so on. It is not necessary to have degree in law for that. However it is necessary to get certain level of understanding English spoken in the courts, which IS different from the English taught in ESL course. Quote Here's a hint: this is what LAWYERS are for. And if you can't afford one, the government will actually GIVE you one, in this country. (I dunno, does that even happen in other countries?) Yes, it happens in other countries too. However, as you definitely aware, you also have the right to refuse the lawyer, and defend yourself. Also I do not see how the lawyer could help here, if the accused want to testimony, for example. Quote Once again, he'd have a lawyer to make sure he didn't get railroaded. How? The prosecutor brings some evidence using the words which make the accused thinking they're talking about something else. His lawyer asks him whether it is true, and he says that yes, it is true. While in reality it is not. So how the lawyer could help here? Quote My understanding is that unless a defendant is called to testify, the court proceedings have really very little to do with him. I do not agree, but let's take this anyway. So you want the trial to be started, but then when the defendant is called to testify (and he has the RIGHT to do so), the court should pause, and start looking for a certified translator? So what would change in this case? Quote And in many cases, defense attorneys advise their clients NOT to testify. I think you still did not understand my main point. The point is that even the person accused in raping a child has certain legal rights, which are guaranteed by law, including the Constitution. It is up to person to whether execute their right or not. Quote I think you are putting too much weight on the idea that this guy would be able to follow every last word of legalese in the courtroom. I'd wager that MOST criminal defendants are not smart or educated enough to do that, yet we don't let them go free just on the idea that we can't dare try them because they don't understand the legal proceedings. That's absurdist. And THAT'S what legal councel is for. But the councel will not help if you misunderstand the language (like thinking that assault and battery are the same words in the court, because the are marked synonims in the vocabulary). Quote Please show me that specific language in the Constitution. You're making the claim; now back your claim up. Quote In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. This is from 6th amentment. Obviously the rights "to be informed" and "to be confronted" require a person to understand the language; since the need of interpreter. The Constitution of California goes even further, and spells is exactly: Quote SEC. 14. Felonies shall be prosecuted as provided by law, either by indictment or, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, by information. ... A person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings. Quote ALL THE MORE REASON TO JUSTIFY THAT IT HAS TAKEN THREE YEARS TO FIND A QUALIFIED INTERPRETER FOR THIS SHITBAG'S SHITHOLE LANGUAGE THAT ONLY TWO THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S POPULATION SPEAKS! That's been my whole fucking point! I have said above that it doesn't matter how many people speak this language. The right is not waived just because the language is rare. Quote Well, for one thing, I'll bet they'd fucking laugh at me if I said they had to drop the charges and let me go just because they didn't have someone who could translate Thai into my language. The fact you'd bet on something doesn't really matter, and doesn't make an argument. Quote I wonder, can you confirm that Thailand would provide a no-cost interpreter to an English speaking criminal defendant in a Thai court? No, I cannot confirm that, as it doesn't matter whether this point is valid or not. The point is that in US this right is guaranteed, even though it doesn't somewhere else. Quote To answer your question, I wouldn't like it, no. But if my language, instead of being English, was vanishingly rare, I think it should be expected and accepted that it might take a good long time to arrange an interpreter for me. It might surprise you, but there is a lot of places in this world, where people do not speak or understand English at all. If you go, for example, to rural areas of China, you'll easily find that the languare you speak is vanishingly rare, and you could easily stick there for three years waiting for a court-certified English interpreter. And again, what you think absolutely doesn't matter here, as there is a law. Quote I'd like confirmation from anyone who knows, about whether other countries go to these lengths like the U.S. is in this case expected to. Some do, some do not. Again, what's your point? Should we chop off the arms of shoplifters because they do it in Saudi Arabia? Quote I can't even answer the question "Does England provide a defense lawyer to those who cannot afford one, as the U.S. Constitution guarantees here?" Yes, it does. Every country I know does that. The quality of those lawyers, however, is very low, but there are lawyers. Quote Let alone, "Do they pay for and arrange interpreters for speakers of foreign languages no matter how obscure?" If theya arrange and pay for interpreters, it doesn't matter how obscure is the language. I know no country which guarantees a court interpreter with condition "if the language is not obscure"; they rather do not guarantee interpreter at all.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 July 25, 2007 Quote In fact, why don't you read the fucking ARTICLE. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you haven't. I mean, over and over in the article, it says that court recordings show there WAS a translator. And yet, here you are saying that the court screwed up by not having a translator... Howzat? If there was a translator, there would have been a trial. Alternatively, per your claims that the guy could speak English (as if attending a junior college really shows this), the trial should have commenced. It did not, thus violating his right to a speedy trial. It's pretty simple. The reasons for this and other judicial rights was made very clear by the Founding Fathers in the 18th Century. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skinnyflyer 0 #21 July 26, 2007 i saw this on cnn tonight. they reported that within a few hours, they were able to find a translator willing to volunteer his services who lived within 15 mins from the courthouse. they also said that the suspect graduated from a school that required him to take several english classes and that he also rejected the english as a second language courses and instead took the normal english classes. they also interviewed his neighbour who claimed he was very fluent in english."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TrophyHusband 0 #22 July 26, 2007 this would be a question for lawrocket, but don't you have to waive your right to a speedy trial when its the defense that delays the trial? how does all that really work? wouldn't someone really have to drop the ball for this to happen? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #23 July 27, 2007 Quote this would be a question for lawrocket, but don't you have to waive your right to a speedy trial when its the defense that delays the trial? But this is not the defense that delays the trial. The responsibility to provide the interpreter is on the Court, not on the defendent.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #24 July 27, 2007 Quote i saw this on cnn tonight. they reported that within a few hours, they were able to find a translator willing to volunteer his services who lived within 15 mins from the courthouse. There is a huge difference between a translator and a court-certified translator. I'm sure you understand this difference. Quote they also said that the suspect graduated from a school that required him to take several english classes and that he also rejected the english as a second language courses and instead took the normal english classes. they also interviewed his neighbour who claimed he was very fluent in english. And, just for the record - who was this neighbor? An English professor? A TOEFL examiner? An English teacher, at least?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
birdlike 0 #11 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteTo me, it seems that the government made good-faith efforts to get an interpreter (for a guy who evidently doesn't even NEED one) and each time, it was the interpreter or the interpreter's circumstances that fell through. The government even had one IN the courtroom, and she couldn't handle the facts of the case and ran out. Hmm. A 3 year delay pretty much blows your 'good faith effort' line out of the water. It doesn't matter why they failed, or if the defendent is accused of something really bad. The right to a speedy trial is one of the original protected rights of our country. The article didn't say if he was jailed during this time. That's an interesting detail to me. The length of time it took them has everything to do with how long it is fair to expect it would take to find a qualified, bona fide interpreter of a language spoken by less than twelve thousandths of one percent of the earth's population. Read in the story that they had arranged several interpreters, but they fell through for various reasons. That means they didn't just let the guy sit there for three years straight. At several points along in the three years, I'll bet it seemed to everyone that they were about to get underway, until things went screwy with these whacko african interpreters! (Like the one who bolted from the courtroom because of the subject matter being abhorrent.) In this case, it seems to be hardly the fault of the government/prosecution that they couldn't get started because they were working to get this guy the fair treatment he's entitled to. HE'S the one with the special needs. They tried over and over to fill them. I also don't know if he was in jail awaiting trial the whole time or not. If so, maybe they could've let him out on bail with an ankle monitor. But gee, it must be nice to be untouchable because the government holds itself to fairness standards and won't/can't try you because the language you speak is so obscure. I'd like to know more about the claims that he was just fine with English...Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #12 July 25, 2007 How many of you people sounding off actually read the damned story?! Here are some excerpts: QuoteSavage ruled on July 17 that Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian who received asylum in the U.S. and attended high school and community college here, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai. Linguists estimate that only 100,000 people speak Vai. A guy can attend community college but not have enough English to stand trial for a brutal crime against a 7-year-old girl? Quote"The fact is on four separate occasions this court provided Vai interpreters," McCarthy said, adding that one of the interpreters had agreed to participate in further proceedings. Court records, meanwhile, show that an interpreter was "sworn" by a Maryland court on the same day Savage dismissed the case, FOXNews.com has learned. Loretta Knight, a clerk with the court system in Montgomery County, Md., claimed she had been unable to find an interpreter to stay on the case, even after an exhaustive search that included the Liberian Embassy and courts in 47 states. But a look at the court docket for July 17, the day the case was dismissed, shows the entry "Interpreter sworn.” Several items below in the docket, Judge Savage “grants defendant’s oral motion to dismiss case based on a speedy trial violation.” A review by FOX News of the audio from that hearing shows, however, that an interpreter was present throughout the entire court proceeding, during which time Kanneh's lawyer, Theresa Chernosky, argued that her client had not been able to get a good job because of unresolved rape charges. QuoteThe translator can be heard throughout the entire hearing. "What we come back to, then ... too much time has passed, is that it's the defendant who hold speedy trial rights." The Washington Post reported, however, that Kanneh had waived his rights to a speedy trial. Why Savage dismissed the case when records indicate an interpreter had been sworn is just one of several questions raised by an examination of records by FOXNews.com. I have to ask, what have you all been reading, to claim that the court/government failed this guy? Sounds to me like they were trying their asses off.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #13 July 25, 2007 Quote If I'm the prosecutor I make DAMN SURE that a translator is available for the trial. If his English was that good the judge could have gone ahead with things with no translator. I agree that this is terrible, but shame on the system for screwing the pooch again. Read my post. In fact, why don't you read the fucking ARTICLE. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you haven't. I mean, over and over in the article, it says that court recordings show there WAS a translator. And yet, here you are saying that the court screwed up by not having a translator... Howzat?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #14 July 25, 2007 why dont we get back to the good old law of the jungle? i'm sure you all would understand if a crowd with bats and hayforks bashes your head into a mass of blood and brain, eventually hanging your sorry ass on the next available tree, wouldnt you? no translation needed for that you know..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #15 July 25, 2007 Quote I have to ask, what have you all been reading, to claim that the court/government failed this guy? Sounds to me like they were trying their asses off. In the words of Yoda - "Try? There is no try. Do, or do not." I always want to see the guilty convicted, but 3 years is excessive. If it was me on trial, and I was innocent, I would probably kill myself after 3 years behind bars. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #16 July 25, 2007 Quote Quote If I'm the prosecutor I make DAMN SURE that a translator is available for the trial. If his English was that good the judge could have gone ahead with things with no translator. I agree that this is terrible, but shame on the system for screwing the pooch again. Read my post. In fact, why don't you read the fucking ARTICLE. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you haven't. I mean, over and over in the article, it says that court recordings show there WAS a translator. And yet, here you are saying that the court screwed up by not having a translator... Howzat? I read the FUCKING article. It's OBVIOUSLY right in the very first POST.****ROCKVILLE, Md. — Charges against a man accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl were dismissed last week because the court could not find an interpreter fluent in the suspect's native West African language. Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian native who received asylum in this country and attended high school and community college here, according to The Washington Post, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #17 July 25, 2007 If this guy turns up dead, does there need to be any investigation? The list of possible suspects would be in the millions. It does not have to be the deed of the family members, it could be any outraged person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #18 July 25, 2007 That is an insult to pigs and dogs everywhere. You owe those fine animals an appolgy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #19 July 25, 2007 Quote Well, the claim was made that the guy attended school in the U.S., and spoke with detectives in English. This is hardly enough to support this claim, as I have said before. Quote I guess our society is shit outta luck if we ever have to try even an American for murder if he's just some dumb yokel. I mean, according to your standard, here, we can't try anyone unless they've received education in the law! This is not what I said. Even though the person doesn't have degree in law, the trial against the person is still fair if he/she has the ability to understand what the charges are, could challenge the evidence, explain their option, and so on. It is not necessary to have degree in law for that. However it is necessary to get certain level of understanding English spoken in the courts, which IS different from the English taught in ESL course. Quote Here's a hint: this is what LAWYERS are for. And if you can't afford one, the government will actually GIVE you one, in this country. (I dunno, does that even happen in other countries?) Yes, it happens in other countries too. However, as you definitely aware, you also have the right to refuse the lawyer, and defend yourself. Also I do not see how the lawyer could help here, if the accused want to testimony, for example. Quote Once again, he'd have a lawyer to make sure he didn't get railroaded. How? The prosecutor brings some evidence using the words which make the accused thinking they're talking about something else. His lawyer asks him whether it is true, and he says that yes, it is true. While in reality it is not. So how the lawyer could help here? Quote My understanding is that unless a defendant is called to testify, the court proceedings have really very little to do with him. I do not agree, but let's take this anyway. So you want the trial to be started, but then when the defendant is called to testify (and he has the RIGHT to do so), the court should pause, and start looking for a certified translator? So what would change in this case? Quote And in many cases, defense attorneys advise their clients NOT to testify. I think you still did not understand my main point. The point is that even the person accused in raping a child has certain legal rights, which are guaranteed by law, including the Constitution. It is up to person to whether execute their right or not. Quote I think you are putting too much weight on the idea that this guy would be able to follow every last word of legalese in the courtroom. I'd wager that MOST criminal defendants are not smart or educated enough to do that, yet we don't let them go free just on the idea that we can't dare try them because they don't understand the legal proceedings. That's absurdist. And THAT'S what legal councel is for. But the councel will not help if you misunderstand the language (like thinking that assault and battery are the same words in the court, because the are marked synonims in the vocabulary). Quote Please show me that specific language in the Constitution. You're making the claim; now back your claim up. Quote In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. This is from 6th amentment. Obviously the rights "to be informed" and "to be confronted" require a person to understand the language; since the need of interpreter. The Constitution of California goes even further, and spells is exactly: Quote SEC. 14. Felonies shall be prosecuted as provided by law, either by indictment or, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, by information. ... A person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings. Quote ALL THE MORE REASON TO JUSTIFY THAT IT HAS TAKEN THREE YEARS TO FIND A QUALIFIED INTERPRETER FOR THIS SHITBAG'S SHITHOLE LANGUAGE THAT ONLY TWO THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S POPULATION SPEAKS! That's been my whole fucking point! I have said above that it doesn't matter how many people speak this language. The right is not waived just because the language is rare. Quote Well, for one thing, I'll bet they'd fucking laugh at me if I said they had to drop the charges and let me go just because they didn't have someone who could translate Thai into my language. The fact you'd bet on something doesn't really matter, and doesn't make an argument. Quote I wonder, can you confirm that Thailand would provide a no-cost interpreter to an English speaking criminal defendant in a Thai court? No, I cannot confirm that, as it doesn't matter whether this point is valid or not. The point is that in US this right is guaranteed, even though it doesn't somewhere else. Quote To answer your question, I wouldn't like it, no. But if my language, instead of being English, was vanishingly rare, I think it should be expected and accepted that it might take a good long time to arrange an interpreter for me. It might surprise you, but there is a lot of places in this world, where people do not speak or understand English at all. If you go, for example, to rural areas of China, you'll easily find that the languare you speak is vanishingly rare, and you could easily stick there for three years waiting for a court-certified English interpreter. And again, what you think absolutely doesn't matter here, as there is a law. Quote I'd like confirmation from anyone who knows, about whether other countries go to these lengths like the U.S. is in this case expected to. Some do, some do not. Again, what's your point? Should we chop off the arms of shoplifters because they do it in Saudi Arabia? Quote I can't even answer the question "Does England provide a defense lawyer to those who cannot afford one, as the U.S. Constitution guarantees here?" Yes, it does. Every country I know does that. The quality of those lawyers, however, is very low, but there are lawyers. Quote Let alone, "Do they pay for and arrange interpreters for speakers of foreign languages no matter how obscure?" If theya arrange and pay for interpreters, it doesn't matter how obscure is the language. I know no country which guarantees a court interpreter with condition "if the language is not obscure"; they rather do not guarantee interpreter at all.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 July 25, 2007 Quote In fact, why don't you read the fucking ARTICLE. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you haven't. I mean, over and over in the article, it says that court recordings show there WAS a translator. And yet, here you are saying that the court screwed up by not having a translator... Howzat? If there was a translator, there would have been a trial. Alternatively, per your claims that the guy could speak English (as if attending a junior college really shows this), the trial should have commenced. It did not, thus violating his right to a speedy trial. It's pretty simple. The reasons for this and other judicial rights was made very clear by the Founding Fathers in the 18th Century. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #21 July 26, 2007 i saw this on cnn tonight. they reported that within a few hours, they were able to find a translator willing to volunteer his services who lived within 15 mins from the courthouse. they also said that the suspect graduated from a school that required him to take several english classes and that he also rejected the english as a second language courses and instead took the normal english classes. they also interviewed his neighbour who claimed he was very fluent in english."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #22 July 26, 2007 this would be a question for lawrocket, but don't you have to waive your right to a speedy trial when its the defense that delays the trial? how does all that really work? wouldn't someone really have to drop the ball for this to happen? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #23 July 27, 2007 Quote this would be a question for lawrocket, but don't you have to waive your right to a speedy trial when its the defense that delays the trial? But this is not the defense that delays the trial. The responsibility to provide the interpreter is on the Court, not on the defendent.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #24 July 27, 2007 Quote i saw this on cnn tonight. they reported that within a few hours, they were able to find a translator willing to volunteer his services who lived within 15 mins from the courthouse. There is a huge difference between a translator and a court-certified translator. I'm sure you understand this difference. Quote they also said that the suspect graduated from a school that required him to take several english classes and that he also rejected the english as a second language courses and instead took the normal english classes. they also interviewed his neighbour who claimed he was very fluent in english. And, just for the record - who was this neighbor? An English professor? A TOEFL examiner? An English teacher, at least?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
