This paper examines two significant challenges in court administration: the provision of language interpretation services and the evolving framework of victims' rights. Drawing on legislative mandates and academic scholarship, it discusses how courts are obligated to supply qualified interpreters for non-English-speaking parties under federal certification programs, and how the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 helped shift adjudication to include victim protections alongside defendant-focused proceedings. The paper also addresses the rise of civil remedies, victim-offender reconciliation programs, and the ongoing challenge of racial inequality in the justice system, arguing that future court administrators must actively work to ensure fairness for all participants.
The administration and management of courts is filled with challenges. Often depending upon the geographical context of the court, such challenges include resource shortages, a perpetual docket of criminal cases, and the broader complexity of providing civil order and justice to communities while balancing constitutional law and local ordinance. Moreover, the complexity of administering justice in and of itself plays a part in the difficulty of court management, with issues such as the deepening ethnic diversity of encountered populations and shifting ideas about victims' rights playing defining roles in the tasks before any given court. The discussion here on language interpretation services and the timeline in the evolution of victims' rights is offered within the context of court administration.
It is often the case that courts will find themselves burdened with the task of wading through the details of officer-defendant confrontations despite the various obstacles to communication that may have contributed to an initial altercation. Officers are trained to control situations rather than to reason through them, and especially in cases where language barriers are a factor, it is simply more expedient to work toward immediate resolution and allow the courts to sort through the details in a formal proceeding. This is consistent with Robinson's (2002) claim that "American criminal justice now devotes a larger portion of its resources to its police and corrections than to its courts, providing more evidence that we are following a crime control model of criminal justice" (Robinson, xv).
It is for this reason that it is incumbent upon the courts to provide all participants in court proceedings with the necessary resource support to effectively navigate the details of an altercation or of events that otherwise led to an incident, crime, or arrest. According to the Missouri Courts (MC) (2010), all courts are recommended to employ interpreters approved by a federal certification program overseen by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Consortium for Language Access in the Courts, as implemented in 2000. This calls for the use of unbiased and fully qualified language interpreters.
The availability of this resource is supported by legislative mandate as well, which indicates that "by law, courts shall appoint a qualified foreign language interpreter in all legal proceedings in which a non-English speaking person is a party or a witness (Section 476.803.1, RSMo)." In the event that such services are necessary, the Missouri Courts further advise that parties should "advise the court directly when services are needed so that they have adequate time to schedule qualified service providers" (MC, p. 1). This means it is incumbent upon those in need of an interpreter to make the proper arrangements to request support and, simultaneously, it is incumbent upon the court to provide the requesting individual with access to such personnel.
In the past, the focus of criminal justice procedures had typically been on the punishment of criminal behavior. Within the context of legal proceedings, the experience of the victim was often secondary or relegated to non-consideration, as the resources of jurisprudence were dedicated to determining the alleged perpetrator's guilt or innocence. Because the system proceeds from an innocent-until-proven-guilty disposition, it has historically been difficult to simultaneously maintain the objectivity required of the courts while attending to the needs, rights, and sensitivities of the alleged victim. This dynamic created a scenario in which advocacy for victims' rights would emerge as a critical area of need in court management.
It is thus that "in 2004, the movement to redraft the Sixth Amendment achieved a partial victory when Congress passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), which pledged that these rights to be present and to be heard would be implemented in federal court proceedings" (Muraskin & Roberts, p. 203). This helped expand the implications of court proceedings by introducing another dimension of justice to the process of adjudication. For the court administrator, there is today a responsibility to simultaneously ensure that justice is carried out with respect to the facts surrounding the defendant, and also to ensure that the victim's role as a witness does not place the individual in a position to be bullied or intimidated by the defense proceedings. This denotes a condition in which the victim is afforded certain protections designed to offset some of the practical challenges related to the philosophical presumption of defendant innocence until proven guilty.
"Victim compensation and privatized adjudication programs"
"Race, profiling, and equity challenges for courts"
The challenges of language access and victims' rights represent just two of the many dimensions that future court administrators must address if justice is to be equitably administered. As courts continue to serve increasingly diverse populations while managing complex caseloads, administrators must remain committed to both procedural fairness and the broader social goal of equal justice for all participants in the legal process.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.