a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated

    No, it is not. You record court proceedings.

Aren't there still courts out there who don't use AV equipment to record proceedings? Additionally, if a court does use audio recording but judges refer back to written transcripts, the problem is still there if the transcripts are flawed.

    But is not a function of court reporters lacking cultural literacy.

It's safe to argue though that cultural literacy is needed throughout the entire system though, because without it even verbatim transcripts won't cut it.

Not arguing. Just thinking out loud.

kleinbl00  ·  1962 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I haven't installed every court in the United States. However, criminal proceedings generally go to a superior court. The software and equipment aren't expensive - about two months' salary for a stenographer (to put it in perspective).

And we're talking about court reporting - not court interpreting. It's not at all safe to expect non-elected, trade-school trained technicians to interpret what they're hearing based on a specialized (rather than generalized) milieu. If a defendant is being misinterpreted, the onus is on their counsel to force a clarification, not on the court reporter to selectively parse nuances of register in order to render their best-fit response. This is how dog lawyers happen.